Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 107 - HC - Indian LawsMaintainability of the plaint - Valuation - Undervaluation of the relief claimed in the suit - HELD THAT:- Order VII Rule 11(b) of the CPC permits rejection of the plaint where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within the time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so - The suit as aforesaid is for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction. Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 provides that in suits other than those referred to in Section 7(v), (vi), (ix) and (x)(d), the value as determined for the computation of court fees and the value for the purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same - The present suit, where the plaintiffs as a consequence of declaration are seeking permanent injunction, qualifies under Section 7(iv)(c) as a suit for declaratory decree and consequential relief and in accordance therewith the plaintiffs are required to set out in the plaint the value at which they value the relief and court fees is to be computed thereon - The Suits Valuation Act provides for valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction to be the same as for the purposes of court fees. The plaintiffs have valued the relief of declaration with consequential relief claimed in the suit, for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction, at ₹ 2 crores and paid appropriate court fees thereon - It is not in dispute that the Court of minimum pecuniary jurisdiction for entertaining a suit, valuation whereof is in excess of ₹ 2 crores, is this Court. The present suit is not for declaration qua liability of the plaintiffs for the debts of the defendant, for it to be said that the maximum liability of each of the plaintiffs as member of the defendant under the Memorandum and Articles of Association having been pegged at ₹ 100/-, the statement required to be made by a plaintiff under Section 7(iv)(c) supra cannot be of a valuation of more than ₹ 100/- - Thus no merit is found in the contention qua valuation, for seeking rejection of the plaint. Jurisdiction of this Court - Bar as created under Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- The grievance in the present suit, though may have its genesis in the complaints of the plaintiffs of mismanagement, the subject matter of the present suit is not mismanagement but the action of the defendant of issuing notice to the plaintiffs to show cause why the membership of the plaintiffs should not be terminated. The said grievance is not a grievance of mismanagement and oppression, even though the cause of action may have its genesis in complaints of plaintiffs, of mismanagement and oppression - Though this is clear as daylight but the defendant also, by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC running into as many as 93 pages and by raising all sorts of arguments, did not allow the same to be seen immediately, resulting in the order being reserved. The application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is found to be misconceived and is dismissed.
|