9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 2068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nto account, it is not considered essential to issue any notice to the remaining respondent arrayed on record. 3. Initial submissions have been made on behalf of the petitioner and on behalf of the respondents No. 4 to 6 qua the averments made in the petition. 4. CS 57946/16 which is pending before the learned Court of the Additional District Judge-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, is a suit filed by the petitioner herein as plaintiff thereof seeking injunction and damages whereby the prayers are made to the effect: "(b) Issue a Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants 1-8, their agents and employees from representing and/or holding themselves out to be shareholders of the Plaintiff Company, and (c) Issue a Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants 1-8, their agents and employees from representing and/or holding themselves out to be Directors, Agents or Authorized Representatives of the Plaintiff Company and restrain the said Defendants from in any manner acting for and on behalf of or in the name of the Plaintiff Company or from using the letter heads of the Plaintiff Company; and (d) Issue a Mandatory Injunction directing the Defendant No. 1-8, their agen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e vide order dated 13.8.2010 vide which the written submissions of the defendant No. 7, i.e., Siddharth Chaudhary was deemed to have not been filed on behalf of the Society, the society being arrayed on record as defendant No.1 i.e., the respondent No.1 to the present petition, and thus it was indicated that there was no written statement of the defendant No.1 i.e. the respondent No.1 on the record. A subsequent prayer that has been made on behalf of the respondent No.1 i.e., the respondent No.1 to the present petition arrayed on record to the suit as defendant No.1 seeking to adopt the written statement filed by the defendants No. 4 to 6 vide order 24.5.2016, was not allowed to be adopted by the defendants No. 1 to 3. The respondent Nos. 4 to 6 through their application which was allowed vide order dated 3.4.2018 had sought to assert that the contentions raised by the plaintiff, i.e., the petitioner to the present petition, claiming their right on the basis of Share Transfer Certificates presuming them to be genuine was erroneous in as much as the Transfer Certificates were issued on stamp papers which stamp papers were not even in existence on the date of issuance as per the Prin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therein was printed only on 13.02.1979 for the first time. Said revelation of facts specifically prove that since the claimed documents could not have been executed prior to 29.01.1974, 20.12.1978 and 13.02.1979 respectively, the Plaintiff has dishonestly and fraudulently tries to use forged documents as genuine to produce as evidence before this Hon'ble court in order to support the false claims made by the Plaintiff in the plaint. 9. That this is further substantiated from the fact that the applicable stamp duty in the year 1968 and 1974 for transfer of shares in any Private Ltd. Company was @75 paise for every Rs. 100/- value of the share, which was reduced to @ 25 paise, only in the year 2004. Reference in invited to the Notifications No. S.O. 198 (E) dated 16th March, 1976 and S.O. 130(E) dated 28th January, 2004 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. From this standpoint, the stamp duty to be affixed on Transfer Deeds allegedly made in the year 1968 or 1974 should have been @ 75 paise for every Rs. 100 value of the share. However, a bare perusal of the forged transfer Deeds shows that the Plaintiffs have affixed the stamp duty @ 25 paise for every Rs. 100 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time printed only on 27.9.1979. further stamps for the denomination of 'Twenty Five Paisa' were affixed on the transfer deed dated 29.1.1974, were in fact printed only on 20.12.1978 for the first time and the stamp for 'Two Rupees' affixed therein was printed only on 13.2.1979 for the first time. It was thus submitted on behalf of the respondents No.4 to 6 that the said revelation of facts specifically prove that since the claimed documents could not have been executed prior to 29.1.1974, 20.12.1978, and 13.02.1979 respectively that the plaintiff had dishonestly and fraudulently tried to use forged documents as genuine to be produced as evidence before the Court in order to support the false claims made by the plaintiff in the plaint. 7. Inter alia, it has also been submitted on behalf of the respondents No.4 to 6 through the amended written statement which amendment had been allowed vide the impugned order that the applicable stamp duty in the year 1968 and 1974 for transfer of shares in any Private Ltd. Company was @ 75 paise for every Rs. 100/- value of the share, which was reduced to @ 25 paise, only in the year 2004 and reference was invited to the Notifications No. S. O. 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the time of considering the amendment of the pleadings would be whether such amendment would be necessary for decision of the real controversy between the parties in the suit and that the merits or demerits of the contentions of the amendment cannot be taken into account. Reliance has also been placed on behalf of the respondents No.4 to 6 on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors. v. Kiran Appaso Swami and Ors.; AIR 2007 SC 1663, with specific reference to the observations to para 14 thereof: "It is now well-settled by various decisions of this Court as well as those by High Courts that the courts should be liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side or on the ground that the prayer for amendment was not a bonafide one. In this connection, the observation of the Privy Council in the case of Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung [AIR 1922 P.C. 249] may be taken note of. The Privy Council observed: "All rules of courts are nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration of justice and it is, therefore, essential that they should be made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a prayer made specifically by the plaintiff directing the defendants which would enable the defendants No.4 to 6 i.e., the respondents No.4 to 6 not to hold themselves out to be share holders of the plaintiff company as well as authorized representative of the company and that the whole case of the plaintiff revolves around the said share certificates which were held by defendant No.1. However the defendant No.1 did not hold any share certificate and had already transferred the same to other persons which had been denied by the defendants. 12. The verdict dated 6.11.2009 of this Court in FAO(OS) 337/2009 with observations in paragraph 30, 31 and 32 in the said order which reads to the effect : " 30. The original documents filed by the appellant and which were on record before the learned Single Judge have been perused by us. The register of shareholders is available reflecting the transfer of shares. Similarly, the share certificate with transfer deeds have also been filed. Annual returns for some of the relevant years have also been placed on record. The position as existed in 1989 is reflective from these original documents by which time the Society had no share holding left i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certificate presuming them to be genuine as observed vide order dated 6.11.2009, of the Division Bench of this court wherein it has been observed inter alia to the effect: "The shares have been transferred in pursuance to the transfer deeds filed. No doubt , learned counsel for the respondents contended that when these documents were sought for before the Company Law Board, they were not available and were stated to have been destroyed in fire and only some of the returns were filed but the fact remains that in the suit these documents have been filed after locating and on a perusal of the same appear to be prima facie authentic." 14. The said observations apparently are on the basis of a prima facie consideration of the record. The evidence in the matter is yet to commence and the case is still at the initial stage despite protracted rounds of litigation in the same. As observed vide the impugned order, the entire basis of the case of the plaintiff relies on the share transfer certificates. In these circumstances the permission granted vide the impugned order dated 3.4.2018 to the respondents No.4 to 6 to amend their written statement to bring on record preliminary objections ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
