TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the exclusive jurisdiction of the authority/Court envisaged by the Act of 1956 - The suggestion about operation of the interim order as passed in the civil suit remains entirely misplaced and is of no avail for the appellants - it appears to be wholly untenable a proposition that because of an order for maintaining status quo in a suit for partition of properties amongst the members of family, an inquiry on the allegations of oppression and mismanagement in a company governed by the Act of 1956 may also be stalled – Decided against Appellant. - S.B. Co. Appeal No. 1 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 1-10-2013 - DINESH MAHESHWARI, J. For the Appellant : Dr. Sachin Acharya, Rajvendra Saraswat and Ms. Charu. For the Respondent : Prateek Kas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he parties and their families were cordial until the year 2008. However, thereafter, differences and disputes cropped up; and it is alleged that in order to resolve the disputes relating to the family properties and businesses, four arbitrators were appointed who made the settlement by their award dated 28.01.2009. It is further alleged that as per the said award, the appellant company would belong to the appellant No.2, who has been handed over the possession of factory premises of the company and who has also shifted his residence therein. Further, according to the appellants, the respondents handed over the share certificates to the appellant No.2 but subsequently, when the respondent No.1 refused to abide by the terms, a written family ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. With reference to the aforesaid facts, the appellants submitted before the Board that the issue involved in the company petition was substantially and directly the same as involved in the pending suit in the Court of District Judge, Hanumangarh, i.e., of the adjudication as per the family settlement dated 22.09.2009. The appellants, thus, prayed before the Board that the proceedings in the company petition be stayed until final disposal of the said civil suit (CO No.123/2012). 6. The present respondents resisted the application so moved, inter alia, with the submissions that the company concerned was not a party to the said civil suit (CO No.123/2012). It was further submitted that the suit was based on the alleged family settlement d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ors v. Jaidka Motors Co. Ltd. [1997] 1 Comp. LJ 268, I am also of the view that the Civil Suit and the present case is for a different purpose and hence, the Company Petition for relief of oppression and mismanagement before the Company Law Board is maintainable. Further, I also relied on the ratio of another case of Tiruppur Karur Transport Pvt. Ltd. and others .v. T.V. Raju Naidu [2006] 133 CC 64 (CLB) wherein it was held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the company petition and the two proceedings were not between the same parties or their representatives and any decision of the civil court would not bind any of the shareholders of the company who were not parties to the civil suit." In view of all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the company in question forms the subject matter of the said suit, as being one of the family assets which was awarded in favour of the appellant No. 2. It is also submitted that when the civil Court has already passed an order to maintain status quo, the question regarding mismanagement or oppression in the company does not arise in the wake of such an interim order already operating. In these circumstances, according to the learned counsel, the Board ought to have stayed the proceedings in the company petition until disposal of the suit. 9. In response to the queries of the Court, the learned counsel has pointed out that the company petition was filed on 11.10.2011; and the said civil suit (CO No.123/2012) was filed on 24.09.2012. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ongst the members of family, an inquiry on the allegations of oppression and mismanagement in a company governed by the Act of 1956 may also be stalled. 13. Merely because the appellants Nos. 2 and 3, and for that matter any of the parties, would suggest that the company in question also forms a part of family arrangement, the company does not cease to be an independent juristic person and being governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Moreover, neither the appellant No.1 company nor several other persons who are the parties to the company petition (respondents Nos. 5 to 9 and 11) are the parties to the said suit. Yet further, the appellants Nos. 2 and 3 filed the civil suit (CO No.123/2012) for the purpose of partition of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
