Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2017 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 467 - HC - Companies LawRectification of register of members of second respondent substituting his name in the place of petitioner's name and issue share certificates in his name - Held that:- The first respondent while he was minor filed C.S.No.412 of 2008 in this Court through his mother for partition of properties of HUF, which are with the petitioner as kartha. In the present suit, the first respondent claiming that the shares do not belong to HUF, but it belongs to him as his individual capacity. A reading of the plaint in C.S.No.412 of 2008 pending before this Court and the present suit reveal that the cause of action as well as the reliefs sought for are entirely different. Hence, the present suit is not hit by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of C.P.C. The petitioner has not stated as to how the Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act is a bar to the present suit. The petitioner has made a vague statement that the suit is not maintainable as per Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act. In view of the above reasons, both the above contentions of the petitioner are untenable, unsustainable and hence they are hereby rejected. Thus, points 1 and 2 are answered against the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Section 10GB of the Companies Act, 1956, which was inserted by the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002, the suit is barred by the provisions of the Companies Act, is devoid of merits. As already held supra, the second relief of permanent injunction relates to title of the share and this Section is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned Judge held that the suit relates to title of the share and therefore dismissed the application. The judgment relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner do not advance the case of the petitioner. On the other hand, the judgments relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the judgments relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent as well as the judgment dated 10.03.2017 made in S.L.P.No.4388 of 2017 and for the reasons stated above, hold that this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
|