Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2010 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (1) TMI 578 - HC - Companies LawSuit filed by the plaintiff 1 for declaration, rendition of accounts and recovery of money - Held that:- We do not find any force in the submission of the defendants that the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties and the Delhi Stock Exchange is a necessary party in the present suit. It appears from the above mentioned fact that the plaintiff has filed the suit against all the relevant parties who are involved in the transaction in question - decided in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. The plaintiff has a real legal interest to protect and the court in such a case would not ordinarily enquire into his motive. He in the facts of the present case has suffered damage or injury occasioned by reason of actions of defendants Nos. 4 and 12, which can be remedied only by way of a declaration as sought for in the instant suit which is maintainable in the eyes of law, it is not correct to allege by the defendants that the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter. It is held that the suit is not barred under section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, thus, this issue is decided against the defendants. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff in his personal capacity as sole proprietor of Bhupender & Co. In view of this fact, we do not think that there is any legal infirmity in the filing of the instant suit. This issue also is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The plaintiff had not traded the stolen property of defendants Nos. 5 to 9. Defendants Nos. 5 to 9 and 11 have failed to discharge their burden in view of the reasons given above and the complaint lodged by defendant No. 9 was false and frivolous, hence this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants Nos. 5 to 9 and 11. As defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were the bona fide purchaser of the shares of defendants Nos. 5 to 9 and no relief can be issued against them. It is actually defendants Nos. 5 to 9 who are liable for the claims made by the plaintiff. Therefore, this issue is accordingly decided in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 accordingly. The letter dated April 26, 1989, from Shri Raghvan addressed to defendant No. 8 filed by defendants Nos. 5 to 9 discloses that Hindalco had released rights and the bonus shares to the registered holders. Thus, it appears that the company has been releasing the benefits in respect of the shares to defendants Nos. 5 to 9 and they have to furnish a statement of account with regard to the receipt of dividends benefits and all other accruals in connection with the shares in dispute which had taken place till October 31, 1995 By order dated October 31, 1995, this court had directed defendants Nos. 5 to 8 to furnish a statement of account with regard to the receipt of dividends, benefits and all other accruals in connection with the shares in dispute which had taken place till October 31, 1995 and which may take place in future till the final disposal of the suit. Defendants Nos. 5 to 9 have not done the same. Defendants Nos. 5 to 9 are liable to render accounts to the plaintiff with respect to all benefits, accruals and dividends on the shares in dispute and on such rendition, a final decree for the amount found due will be passed. This issue is, hence decided in favour of the plaintiff. As per prayer, the plaintiff has not claimed any interest/pendent lite against defendants Nos. 3 to 9 and 11, therefore, the same cannot be granted and this issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
|