//
you're reading...
legal issues

Suit for Declaration , Mandatory Injunction and for accounts and permanent injunction against companies , firms and immovable properties of Hindu Joint family – Trial court granted interim injunction order for not to sale and directed to submit audit reports regularly before the court – High court dismissed the injunction order as the suit is not maintainable against company properties and firms( even though corporate veil was lifted in partition suits as per Apex court) and as the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and dismissed the I.A. stating that when the main relief can not be granted, no interim injunction should be given – Apex court held that we are of the opinion that while dealing with a matter relating to vacation of order of temporary injunction, it was not open for the High Court to give a finding on the main issue relating to maintainability of the suit and the family settlement reached between the parties. = CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7174 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.9914 of 2012) BABU LAL & ORS. … APPELLANTS VERSUS M/S VIJAY SOLVEX LTD. & ORS. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 -Aug.part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41811

Suit for Declaration , Mandatory Injunction and for accounts and permanent injunction against companies , firms and immovable properties of  Hindu Joint family – Trial court granted interim injunction order for not to sale and directed to submit audit reports regularly before the court – High court dismissed the injunction order as the suit is not maintainable against company properties and firms( even though corporate veil was lifted in partition suits as per Apex court) and as the suit is bad  for non-joinder of necessary parties and dismissed the I.A. stating that when the main relief can not be granted, no interim injunction should be given – Apex court held that we are of the opinion that  while dealing  with  a  matter  relating  to  vacation  of  order   of   temporary injunction, it was not open for the High Court to  give  a  finding  on  the main  issue  relating  to  maintainability  of  the  suit  and  the   family settlement reached between the parties. =

 

Plaintiffs/appellants-Babulal  and   others   filed   a   suit   for

declaration, mandatory  injunction,  rendition  of  accounts  and  permanent

injunction against the defendants/non-applicants =

Interim Injunction

Resultantly,  the  application  of  the  plaintiffs-

appellants for temporary  injunction  against  the  non-applicants  and  the

counter temporary  injunction  application  filed  on  behalf  of  the  non-

applicants were partly allowed and it was ordered that till the decision  of

the original suit:-

1. The applicants and non-applicants  no.1  to  31  and  the  non-applicants

no.36 to 43 shall not sell/transfer the immovable  properties  as  mentioned

in Schedule “Ka” to “Cha” and nor shall they create any  substantial  charge

on the said properties.

2.    The Companies/Partnership firms controlled and run by the  parties  of

which the details have been given in Schedule “Ka” to “Cha”  regarding  them

the  audited  accounts  of  income  and  expenditure  half   yearly/annually

whichever is got done in the normal sequence shall be presented before  this

Court.

Apart from this the other prayers which have been made  by  both  the

parties are rejected. =

Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2010) 7  SCC  1

and in the case of Sangram Singh P. Gaekwad  and  others  v.  Shantadevi  P.

Gaekwad (D) Through LRs. & Ors. (2005) 11 SCC 314 and submitted that  though

a company incorporated under the Companies  Act  is  a  body  corporate,  in

certain situations, its corporate veil can be lifted and that the  suit  for

partition could be filed against companies also.

C.M.A.

    The High Court by impugned judgment and order dated 14th  March,  2012

observed as follows:

”6………It is also significant to note that the plaintiffs have  impleaded  the

companies, partnership firms and proprietary concerns and HUFs as the  party

defendants, and the said companies and firms have also  been  shown  as  the

properties or the assets of the HUF in the schedule  ‘Gha’  annexed  to  the

plaint.

This court fails to understand as to how  the  companies  which  are

incorporated under the Companies Act  having  perpetual  seal  and  separate

entity could be the assets of the HUF as alleged by the  plaintiffs  and  as

to how the companies could  be  divided  by  metes  and  bounds  by  way  of

partition as prayed for in the suit.

The plaintiffs in the  suit  have  also

prayed for mandatory injunction seeking  direction  against  the  defendant-

companies alongwith other defendants to  act  upon  the  family  settlement,

alleged to have taken place on 20.12.2007  between  the  Niranjan  Lal  Data

Group and Babu Lal Data Group, and have also sought  the  direction  against

the said companies to execute the documents and handover the  possession  of

the properties of the said companies and firms etc.

This  court  also  fails

to understand as to how the alleged family settlement between the NLD  Group

and BLD Group would be binding to the defendant companies and  firms,  apart

from the issue as to whether the alleged document dated 20.12.2007 could  be

called a family settlement.

Under the circumstances this  court  finds  much

substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for  the  appellants

that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not only  bad  for  mis-joinder  of

parties and of causes of action,  but  also  for  non-joinder  of  necessary

parties and that the suit in the present form would not be  maintainable  in

the eye of law.

7.    So far  as  merits  of  the  case  are  concerned,  according  to  the

respondents-plaintiffs, all the properties mentioned in the  Schedules  ‘Ka’

to ‘Chha’ annexed to the plaint, were purchased  from  the  nucleus  of  the

joint family properties, and as per the family  settlement  dated  20.12.07,

the said properties were required to be divided amongst the  family  members

of the plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant Nos.1 to 9.

In this regard,  it  is

pertinent to note that the entire suit of the plaintiffs is based on the so-

called family settlement which had allegedly taken  place  between  the  NLD

group and BLD group on 20.12.07.

From the bare perusal of the said  document

it transpires that it is the minutes of the meeting  of  Data  Group  Family

dated 20.12.07, which was signed by Mr. Vijay Data for  NLD  Group  and  Mr.

Babu Lal Data for BLD Group. Apart  from  the  fact  that  there  is  not  a

whisper in the said document that the corpus of the companies  mentioned  in

the said document was provided by the  HUF  or  that  the  other  properties

mentioned in the said document were the HUF properties,  the  said  document

has also not been signed by the other coparceners of the alleged HUF  except

by Mr. Vijay Data and Mr. Babu Lal Data.

Such a document by  no  stretch  of

imagination could be said to be a family settlement. However, even if it  is

believed to be a family settlement, and even if it is  held  that  the  same

was not required to be signed by all the coparceners,  then  also  there  is

nothing on the record to suggest that it was  a  memorandum  prepared  after

the family arrangement which had already been made earlier, not required  to

be registered. ………….

“9.   In this regard it is pertinent  to  note  that  though  the  concerned

defendants had raised contentious issues as regards the  maintainability  of

the suit, mis-joinder of parties and of causes  of  action,  suppression  of

material facts by the plaintiffs etc., the lower court  has  not  considered

the same and has held that the plaintiffs had established  the  prima  facie

case in their favour.

In the opinion of this court such  a  finding  of  the

lower court in the impugned order is not only erroneous but  also  perverse.

When the suit on the face of it suffered from  the  mis-joinder  of  parties

and of causes of action and was not prima facie tenable in the eye  of  law,

the lower court has committed serious error of  law  and  facts  in  holding

that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case.

If  the  plaintiffs

were not entitled to the final reliefs  in  the  suit,  they  could  not  be

granted temporary injunction as  prayed  for  during  the  pendency  of  the

suit.”

Apex court held that

we are of the opinion that  while

dealing  with  a  matter  relating  to  vacation  of  order   of   temporary

injunction, it was not open for the High Court to  give  a  finding  on  the

main  issue  relating  to  maintainability  of  the  suit  and  the   family

settlement reached between the parties.

8.    In view of the finding aforesaid, we are inclined  to  interfere  with

the judgment and order dated 14th March, 2012 passed by the  High  Court  of

Judicature for Rajasthan,  Bench  at  Jaipur  in  S.B.  Civil  Misc.  Appeal

No.2218 of 2011 etc. We, accordingly, set aside the  impugned  judgment  and

remit back the matter to the  High  Court  for  its  fresh  disposal   after

hearing the parties.

2014 -Aug.part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41811

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,934,856 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,873 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com