9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .10.1987 and 25.08.2011 to substantiate its claim of ownership over the suit property. 2. In pursuance of the order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the predecessor bench of this Court, the matter was listed on 22.08.2024 for arguments on the maintainability of the present suit. Submissions on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 3. Mr. Suhail Khan, learned counsel for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that that the present suit, which was re-filed on 06.04.2023 could not be instituted and maintained as the Plaintiff Company has been struck off by the Registrar of Companies ['RoC'] vide Notice No. ROC/DELHI/248(5)/STK-7/4865 dated 08.08.2018 published on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India. 3.1. He stated that the Master Data of the Plaintiff Company as available on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs also reflects the status of the Plaintiff Company as "Strike Off". He stated that the Director Identification Number ['DIN'] status of both the Directors of the Plaintiff Company i.e., Mr. Ram Dilawri and Mrs. Swarna Dilawri also shows as "Deactivated due to non-filing of DIR-3 KYC". He stated that therefore, the affidavits filed by Mr. Ram Dilawri hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that no notice has been issued in the said appeal and there is no stay on the operation of the said final order and judgment. Findings and Analysis 5. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record. 6. The Plaintiff Company has filed the present suit on 23.08.2022 seeking recovery of possession of the suit property admeasuring 300 sq. yards consisting of 2½ floors built thereon and further seeking relief of permanent injunction and mesne profits w.e.f., 25.08.2019. 7. This suit was first listed before this Court on 12.04.2023, on which date, the Court issued directions for registering the plaint as a suit and issued summons to the Defendants. 8. It is undisputed that one Sh. Purushottam Nagesh Oak ('Sh. P.N. Oak') was the original allottee of this plot and Sh. P. N. Oak had purchased the plot from DLF Housing and Construction Pvt. Ltd. vide registered sale deed dated 03.03.1962. 9. The Plaintiff Company has filed this suit and claimed relief against the Defendants on the basis of absolute title in the suit property. For establishing its title, the Plaintiff Company has relied upon the following documents: - i. Registered Sale deed d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tober, 2011, Defendant No. 1 filed FIR No. 137/2011 with P.S. Greater Kailash, Delhi against the Plaintiff Company and other persons on the allegation that the Plaintiff Company and other miscreants had tried to illegally grab the suit property. It is stated that the FIR was investigated and Sh. Raj Singh Malik as well as other accused were arrested. It is stated that in the said proceedings, the concerned Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 18.02.2020 observed that Mr. Ram Dilawri, the Director of the Plaintiff Company himself had been defrauded by Sh. Raj Singh Malik and Mr. Ram Dilawri himself was not guilty of the offences alleged in the said FIR. And, thus charges against Mr. Ram Dilawri were dismissed. 12. It is stated in the plaint that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in January, 2012 filed a civil suit bearing Civil Suit No. 208149/2016 against the Plaintiff Company and other Defendants for declaration of title qua the suit property and specifically, seeking cancellation of the sale deeds dated 30.10.1987 and 25.08.2011, relied upon by the Plaintiff Company to claim title in the suit property. It is stated that the said suit was initially filed before this Court a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no sale deed dated 30.10.1987 in respect of the suit property, registered as document no. 4733, Book No. I, Vol. No. 4812, pages no. 185 to 187 and that at the said page numbers a lease deed dated 10.03.1983, executed between Sh. N.K. Jain and the Central Bank of India qua ground floor of property no. D-1 A, Green Park, New Delhi, is registered, (c) the failure of the defendant no. 2 company to lead any credible evidence to prove that the sale deed dated 30.10.1987, Ex.DW3/4 (previously Ex.PW1/83) was duly executed by Sh. P.N. Oak in favour of the defendant no. 1 and (d) the stand taken by the defendant no. 3 (director of the defendant no. 2 company) in the Court of Sh. Harun Pratap, the then Ld. MM, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, during the hearing of arguments on charge, in the criminal case arising from FIR No. 137/11, PS G.K.-1, to the effect that he as well as the defendant no. 2 company were inter-alia defrauded by the defendant no. 1, Sh. Raj Singh Malik, collectively establish, (i) that the sale deed dated 30.10.1987, Ex.DW3/4 (previously Ex.PW1/83) was/is a bogus/sham document, (ii) that on 25.08.2011, the defendant no. 1 had absolutely no title qua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The affidavit of the Director, Sh. Ram Dilawri, filed in support of the plaint bears the Notary seal date of 15.09.2022. The plaint is accompanied by a certificate of the Advocate dated 28.09.2022, certifying that all documents filed with the suit are true copies. The discrepancy in the dates shows that the filing of the plaint was highly irregular; however, notwithstanding the contradictions in the dates; in view of the admitted fact that as on 15.09.2022, the Plaintiff Company was aware that the title documents dated 30.10.1987 and 25.08.2011 relied upon by the Plaintiff Company for maintaining its claim in the suit property had been declared null and void by a Court of Competent jurisdiction after trial and thus, the filing of this suit thereafter, was without any cause of action and is an abuse of process of law. 16. The fact of the passing of the final order and judgment dated 15.09.2022 in Civil Suit No. 8419/2016 also finds no mention in the list of dates and synopsis accompanying the plaint. The said synopsis was drawn subsequently on 28.09.2022 as is apparent from printed page 13 of the plaint and ought to have made a full disclosure of the passing of the said judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tocopies of sale deeds furnished by revisionist Manish Aggarwal were got verified from the office of Sub-Registrar, Kashmere Gate and it was reported by the concerned authorities that as per Peshi register, index register and corporation register, the particulars mentioned in the sale deeds did not match with record available in the office of Sub-Registrar. It was also reported that instead the sale deed having registration no. 4733 and Addl. Book I, Volume No. 4812, page no. 185-187 dt. 30.10.1987 was indeed executed between Sh. Hari Chand Gupta S/o Sh. Hazari Lal in favour of Sh. Lachhman Dass S/o Shiv Ram in respect of property no. XII/1867, Maika Ganj." (Emphasis Supplied) 20. The Plaintiff Company despite pleading this order at paragraph 11 of the plaint and relying upon the same, failed to refer to this relevant portion of the said order. The Plaintiff Company does not dispute finding of the fact that the sale deed dated 30.10.1987 alleged to have been executed between Sh. P. N. Oak and Sh. Raj Singh Malik is non-existent and, on this fact, alone, the entire edifice of the claim of the Plaintiff Company to the suit property fails and it could not have maintained the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Company has been defrauded by Sh. Raj Singh Malik into executing the sale deed dated 10.08.2011 and parting with valuable consideration of Rs. 1.80 crores. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate was persuaded by submissions of Mr. Ram Dilawri and the Plaintiff Company, which led to the dismissal of criminal charges against the said Director. The relevant portion of the order dated 18.02.2020 reads as under: - "Finally, as far as the role of accused Ram Dilawri is concerned, it is the admitted case of the prosecution that the said accused happens to be an NRI who ordinarily does not reside In India and that he had appointed accused Manlsh Aggarwal as the AR of his company M/s. Oakleaf Developers Pvt Ltd. It is also an admitted case of the prosecution that an amount of Rs 1,80,00,000/- has been indeed transferred from the account of the said company in the account of accused Raj Singh Malik and that there is no direct allegation against accused Ram Dilawari being involved in this case. The case of the prosecution against accused Ram Dilawari is entirely based on circumstantial evidence consisting of the fact that he and his wife have provided their residential address of a property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y witness has alleged about any role being played directly or indirectly by accused Ram Dilawari In the entire transaction in their statement u/s 161 CrPC and the fact that there is lack of material on record to show meeting of minds between accused Ram Dilawari with other accused persons to Indeed commit the alleged offences as part of a criminal conspiracy negate the gravity of suspicion towards accused Ram Dilawari, which is otherwise also duly explained by the said accused." 24. In the said order dated 18.02.2020, the concerned Court was dealing with FIR No. 137/2011 filed by Defendant No. 1 on account of an incident pertaining to forcible dispossession of the residents from the suit property at the instance of the authorized representative of the Plaintiff Company and goons hired by the said authorized representative. The order records that the residents resisted their forcible dispossession with the intervention of the police and the possession remains with Defendant No. 1. In this regard, the District Court as well in its final order and judgment dated 15.09.2022 after recording evidence of the parties has returned a finding that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the persons in p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion that such an explanation offered by the Plaintiff Company cannot be accepted and has to be rejected outrightly. A corporate entity is liable under the Companies Act, 2013 to make annual compliances with respect to its affairs by filing statutory returns. The Plaintiff Company would have been obliged between the year 2018 to 2024 to make several filings and would have immediately learnt that it is unable to do so since the company has been struck-off. This Court, therefore, finds no substance in the explanation offered by the Plaintiff Company. 30. In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the captioned suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This Court is also of the opinion that continuation of these proceedings would tantamount to an abuse of the process of Court as well as lead to a waste of valuable judicial time and cause undue hardship to Defendant nos. 1 and 2, who have lawfully pursued the legal process in Civil Suit No. 208149/2016, which led to the passing of the final judgment and order dated 15.09.2022, after a full trial. 31. In these facts, the present suit is d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
