TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 531 of 2004, 990 shares of Odeon were held by M/s. Khushalani Investments Pvt. Ltd., which is Plaintiff in Suit No. 3530 of 2004. It is an admitted position that M/s. Khushalani Investment Pvt. Ltd. is a company controlled by Mr. Ashok Khushalani. It is also an admitted position that Mr. Gul Achra and his wife Mrs. Kanta Gul Achra together held 990 shares of Odeon. M/s. Achra Investments Pvt. Ltd., which is a company controlled by Mr. R.K. Achra also held 990 shares. It is an admitted position that Gul Achra is Defendant in all these three suits. Mr. Madhu Achra, who is Plaintiff in Suit No. 3166 of 2004, Mr. Suresh Achra who is Plaintiff No. 1 in Suit No. 3531 of 2004 and one Mr. Ram Achra are real brothers, whereas Ms. Pramila Chhuttani who is Plaintiff No. 2 in Suit No. 3531 of 2004 is their sister. Mr. Ashok Khushalani, whose company M/s. Khushalani Investment Pvt. Ltd. is Plaintiff in Suit No. 3530 of 2004 is brother-in-law of Mr. Madhu Achra, Mr. Suresh Achra and Mr. Ram Achra. It is an admitted position that Odeon is owner of Plot No. 194 of Town Planning Scheme Ghatkopar No. III, city survey No. 5752, where Cinema Theatre by name "Odeon Theatre" was constructed. It is the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rim orders in relation to the property held by Odeon can be passed, because the subject-matter of the suit is not the property held by Odeon, but only the shares of Odeon are subject-matter of each suit. It is claimed that the suit has been valued only on the value of the shares and court fees is accordingly paid, and therefore, according to the Defendants no interim order in relation to the property of the Odeon can be passed. It is, further submitted that temporary injunction in these notices of motion in relation to the property is sought also against the Odeon, which is Defendant in all the suits. It is submitted that an order of temporary injunction against the company, which is admittedly the owner of the property cannot be made. 6. It is further the defence of the Defendants that so far as Madhu Achra, who is Plaintiff in Suit No. 3166 of 2004 is concerned, he has taken contradictory stands from time to time in relation to transfer of his shareholdings in Odeon, and therefore, his case that his shares were transferred by Gul Achra to himself by forging his signature is incapable of being believed. It is submitted that the said Madhu Achra had filed an affidavit dated 9th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eads as under : "For the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction the plaintiff values his claim in this suit at Rs. 1,98,000 being the value of his 990 shares at Rs. 1,000 for injunction. The plaintiff, therefore has affixed the court fees of Rs. 8,430 to present suit in accordance with provisions of Bombay Court Fees Act. I undertake to pay additional court fees, if required." 8. Thus, the Plaintiffs are valuing their claim in relation to the value of their shares in Odeon. Perusal of the valuation clause in two other suits shows that same approach is adopted by the Plaintiffs in those suits also. Thus, the subject-matter of these suits are the shares which were held by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs as shareholders will not get any interest over the property of the company. In my opinion, therefore, in these circumstances, reliance was rightly placed by the learned Counsel appearing for the Defendants on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bacha F. Guzdar v. CIT AIR 1955 SC 74, particularly on following observations : "A shareholder has got no interest in the property of the company though he has undoubtedly a right to participate in the profits if and wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idavit dated 9th March, 2004 filed in Suit No. 3980 of 2003 in this Court shows that he in Feb./March 1992 had agreed to transfer his 50 per cent holdings in Odeon to his brother Ram in exchange of Ram s share in a partnership firm Shri Laxmi Talkies. He further states that he instructed Gul to transfer his 50 per cent holding in Odeon to Ram and that he took over Ram s share in the above referred firm. The facts that were stated in the above referred affidavit were relevant facts in the suit filed by Madhu, therefore, he was under a duty to disclose them in the plaint, I do not find any explanation given anywhere by Madhu as to why he did not disclose these relevant facts in the plaint. Therefore, I find substance in the submission of the Defendants that Madhu is guilty of suppression of relevant facts. In the affidavit referred to above Madhu states that he transferred his 50 per cent holding in Odeon to Ram. It was argued that the settlement with Ram did not go through therefore, Madhu continued to hold 22 per cent share of Odeon. However, perusal of the affidavit filed by Madhu in the suit filed by Ram in Kalyan Court shows that there the stand of Madhu is that Ram has no share ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
