Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2020 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 811 - HC - Companies LawRejection of plaint - Specific performance of agreement of sale - plaint rejected on the ground that there is no substantial legal cause of action for filing the suit and the entire basis for filing the suit is based on an alleged oral agreement between two companies is also absurd, speculative and bad in law. Whether the oral agreement of sale entered by two or more private limited companies validly gives rise to cause of action to file suit for specific performance? HELD THAT:- Section 21 of the Act of 2013 lays down the manner in which the document or proceeding requiring authentication by a company or contracts made by or on behalf of a company. There is no provision of oral agreement in the Act of 2013. In view of Section 465(2)(b) of the Act of 2013 coming into force, Section 46(1)(b) of the Act of 1956 is repealed and therefore, the latter is not applicable. Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, issued notification dated 30-08-2013, amending the law relating to companies and by the said amendment, Section 46 of Companies Act, 1956 was repealed. In the new Act, it is expressly said “this Act” which means 2013 Act. When there is conflict between the old Act and new Act, new Act will prevail. Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be filed at any stage of the proceedings. Therefore, the contention of the respondent in this regard cannot be appreciated. As per Section 10 of the Contract Act, if law envisages written contract, it should be in writing. Normally, when two companies wanted to enter into an agreement for sale and purchase of of land, they must enter into a written agreement, but not by way of an oral agreement - In the present case, it is the case of the respondent that it entered into an oral agreement with the petitioners for purchase of a huge extent of land, which cannot be believed. The trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners/defendants on the ground that the application is filed when the suit was coming up for arguments. But, as per the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC., when an application filed for rejection of the plaint, it shall be decided on the basis of the cause of action disclosed in the plaint and the said application can be filed at any stage even at the stage of arguments - In the present case, the trial Court, without deciding the application on the basis of the cause of action mentioned in the plaint, simply dismissed the application on the ground that the said application was filed at the stage of arguments, which is against the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In view of the same, it can be said that the trial Court erroneously dismissed the application without properly looking into the provisions of law. The the oral agreement entered by the two juristic persons is not valid - revision petition allowed.
|