TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Civil Court is barred, is on the premise that in view of the coming into force of Section 430, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred, since the NCLT is empowered to deal with and decide the issues framed by the trial Court. It is not even the case of the plaintiff that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to decide the suit. Indeed, the plaintiff invited the Civil Court to decide the legality and validity of the sale deeds executed by Respondent No.1 in favour of Respondents No.2 to 19 and agreement to sell in favour of defendant no.20. The submission is, that the amended provisions of the Act came into force during the pendency of the appeal and, therefore, the appellate Court ceased to have jurisdiction over the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court dismissed the suit. The trial Court recorded a finding that Shri Anilkumar was not a Director of Kalpita Buildings Pvt. Ltd.. The trial Court further held that defendant 1 was the Managing Director of Kalpita Builders Pvt. Ltd. and that the alienation done did not suffer from any infirmity. The trial Court further held that there was a misjoinder of causes of action. 5 The plaintiff preferred two appeals challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Regular Civil Appeal 153/2015 is preferred by the Company and Regular Civil Appeal 154/2015 is preferred by Shri Anilkumar. In the pending appeals, applications Exhibit-92 and Exhibit-93, respectively, were preferred seeking transfer of the appeals to the National Company Law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sinecure Tecfhnocity Ptd. Ltd. others [CS(COMM) No.242/2019, decided by the High Court of Delhi, on 22.05.2019; (iii) Nirbhay Kapoor Vs. M/s Kamero Technosys Ltd. another, (First Appeal No.427 of 2019), decided by the High Court of Allahabad, on 01.07.2019; and (iv) Sas Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. another Vs. Surya Constructions Pvt. Ltd., (CS (COMM) 1496/2016, decided on 16.10.2018, by the High Court of Delhi. 7 In my considered view, the petition deserves to be dismissed for the reasons spelt out hereinafter. 8 Section 430 of the Act, reads thus: 430. Civil Court not to have jurisdiction- No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the Tribunal or the Appellate Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w, the decisions, which are referred and which are pressed in service, and which consider the scope and ambit of Section 430 of the Act, need not be discussed in detail. It is not even the case of the plaintiff that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to decide the suit. Indeed, the plaintiff invited the Civil Court to decide the legality and validity of the sale deeds executed by Respondent No.1 in favour of Respondents No.2 to 19 and agreement to sell in favour of defendant no.20. The submission is, that the amended provisions of the Act came into force during the pendency of the appeal and, therefore, the appellate Court ceased to have jurisdiction over the matter. I am not persuaded to accept the said submission. 11 As note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
