TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 957X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usly be entertained by the Company Law Board as determined by the Bombay High Court and the Company Law Board itself and as such, the plea raised pertaining to lack of jurisdiction of the civil courts apparently has no substance. As provisions of Section 122 of the Act provide for specific performance of contract to subscribe for debentures and the same can be enforced by a decree, the same necessarily means that the action pertaining to the allotment or forfeiture of debentures can be questioned before the civil courts - the applications were filed under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC and not under Order I, Rule 10 CPC, therefore, as it was not a case of impleading a new party and the applications were only to bring the cause title of the suits in consonance of the present status of the defendant Company as such, the plea in this regard also has no substance. The attempt to question the validity of orders passed under Order IX, Rule 7 CPC, has been noticed only to be rejected as the appellant had the opportunity to question the validity of the orders during pendency of the first appeals by filing cross-objections in the appeals filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, however, no such at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issions, it was prayed that the orders dated 14.06.2004 forfeiting the right to receive equity shares in respect of FCDs be cancelled and the defendant be directed to issue 100 shares alongwith consequential benefits. Permanent injunction was sought not to implement the communication dated 14.06.2004 forfeiting the shares arising out of the FCDs. Though the Company appeared through counsel, however, as the counsel was not present on 10.03.2006, ex-parte proceedings were initiated. The appellants-plaintiffs filed applications under Order IX, Rule 7 r/w Section 151 CPC, however, the said applications were rejected by the trial court on 26.09.2011. On part of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs filed their affidavits in evidence and exhibited 08 documents. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have not indicated that when did they receive the information and demand for the third installment and that the payment of the third installment was made, has not been proved by producing copy of the cheque / draft and therefore, only on account of the proceedings being ex-parte, the plaintiffs cannot succeed and consequently, dismissed the sui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e name was changed to JSW Steel Limited. The plaintiffs filed applications under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC, which were accepted by the trial court and the name of the defendant No.1 was changed from Jindal Iron Steel Limited to JSW Steel Limited. However, a fresh notice was not issued to the defendant JSW Steel Limited, to which, it was entitled, which deprived the Company of appearing and contesting the suits. It was further submitted that the rejection of applications filed by the appellants under Order IX, Rule 7 CPC, in the circumstances of the case, were not justified, however, it was conceded that neither the orders rejecting the applications under Order IX, Rule 7 CPC were challenged during the pendency of the suits nor any cross-objections were filed in the appeals preferred by the plaintiffs after dismissal of their suits. Reliance was placed on Eternit Everest Limited v. Neelmani Bhartiya : AIR 1999 (Raj.) 235; Shashi Prakash Khemka v. NEPC MICON Ors. : 2019 (212) CompCas 385. Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that none of the questions sought to be agitated by the appellant are substantial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that if a company without sufficient cause refuses to register transfer of shares within two months from the date on which the instrument of transfer or the intimation of transfer, as the case may be, is delivered to the company, the transferee may appeal to the Company Law Board and it shall direct such company to register the transfer of shares. (3) The Company Law Board may, on an application made by a depository, company, participant or investor or the Securities and Exchange Board of India, if the transfer of shares or debentures is in contravention of any of the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 or regulations made thereunder or the Sick Industrial Companies (Special provisions) Act, 1985 or any other law for the time being in force, within two months from the date of transfer of any shares or debentures held by a depository or from the date on which the instrument of transfer or intimation of the transmission was delivered to the company, as the case may be, after such inquiry as it thinks fit, direct any depository or company to rectify its register or records. (4) The Company Law Board while acting under sub-section (3), may at its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cribe for debentures and the same can be enforced by a decree, the same necessarily means that the action pertaining to the allotment or forfeiture of debentures can be questioned before the civil courts. So far as the issue sought to be raised regarding right to get another notice in the suits after the plaintiffs were permitted to change the name of the defendant is concerned, it is apparent from what has been noticed herein-before that the appellant JSW Steel Limited had itself filed applications under Order IX, Rule 7 CPC and as such, once the company had the notice of the pending suits and the plaintiffs had filed applications in the pending suits, merely based on the averments made in the applications, seeking change in the name of the defendant, cannot entitle the appellant to get a fresh notice. Besides the applications were filed under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC and not under Order I, Rule 10 CPC, therefore, as it was not a case of impleading a new party and the applications were only to bring the cause title of the suits in consonance of the present status of the defendant Company as such, the plea in this regard also has no substance. The attempt to question the vali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
