9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 87, Late Shri. Iqbal Singh Bhathal is said to have purchased 100 equity shares of MRF limited having a face value of Rs.10/- each, bearing Folio No. B02990, in the name of his son, the Appellant Shri. Tejinder Singh Bhathal and Late Smt. Satwant Kaur Bhathal, mother of the Appellant. The Appellant contends that he was not aware of the investments thus made by his father in his name, by virtue of the purchase of the aforesaid equity shares with effect from 27.02.1987, but however he was made conscious of the aforesaid transaction/purchase of the shares only when on 16.10.2018, he was called upon for the purposes of collecting the information, as to whether he happens to be the holder of 100 equity shares of MRF company, since they have been transferred to the Investor Education and Protection Fund (IEPF). It is upon the said information being imparted to the Appellant, he had written to the Respondent, for issuing of Duplicate Share Certificates, of the said shares in lieu of, the share certificate, which have been lost bearing Share Certificate No. 168061 and 168062. Thereafter, in response to the communication made on 16.10.2018, the MRF is said to have written a reply on 15.11.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ef by way of a title over the 100 equity shares of the MRF, which were owned by the Appellant jointly with his deceased mother. In the light of the provisions contained under Section 430 of the Companies Act, in matters falling under the jurisdictions of NCLT/NCLAT civil suits shall not be entertained, and therefore a civil suit with regards to the aforesaid controversy was not maintainable. Still the Appellant filed a civil suit on 24.01.2020 in Civil Court Senior Division, Pune in RCS 123/2020 wherein, the Appellant has claimed his title over the 100 equity shares of the MRF, which were owned by the Appellant jointly, with his deceased mother. The said suit remained pending and during its pendency, the Appellant instituted the proceedings, by way of a company petition being Company Petition No.106 (CHE)/3/2021, preferred before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority on 28.07.2021. When the proceedings of the company petition was being conducted, it was found that in the proceedings instituted by the Appellant under Section 59 of the Companies Act, the Appellant has sought multi-fold reliefs, the cognizance of which has been taken by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in the Impugned Order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant to prove that he has filed an application for the purpose of withdrawal of the Civil Suit No. R.C.S. 123/2020, and since there is no document of the civil court on record to prove the withdrawal of the suit, it is to be held that the Appellant has not complied with the earlier conditions/undertaking, given in the Company Petition in Para 42 and 43, to the effect that, he would be withdrawing the suit, and accordingly proceeded to pass the impugned order, dismissing the petition of the Appellant on the ground that the Appellant cannot be permitted to resort to two parallel remedies simultaneously for the redressal of his grievance, which is of a like nature based on the same subject matter and the cause of action too. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that, though admittedly they undertook to withdraw the suit and they had also filed a memo in that regard before the Ld. Civil Court, but no orders were passed on the same, and the said suit was, as per his submission, dismissed as withdrawn only on 13.08.2022, after passing of the Impugned Order and thus the embargo which was created by Section 430 of the Companies Act, now stood eradicated because of subsequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that when this company appeal was being considered, it is a fact which is not denied, that on the withdrawal memo was filed in the civil suit except that the Lok Adalat dismissed the suit as withdrawn only on 13.08.2022 after the Company Petition got dismissed. If that be the case, a scenario has emerged where the Appellant has, lost both of his legal remedies to pursue the matter. A right to judicial remedy, is a right envisaged under the Constitution, which cannot be deprived of, merely because of a minor procedural error or procedural technicalities and because of the fact that, the application for withdrawal of the suit was considered subsequently, by the Hon'ble Civil Court on 13.08.2022 for which the Appellant cannot be held responsible. We will have to bear in mind that even the subsequent order passed in the suit on the withdrawal application, will too have a similar effect of overriding the restrictions contained under Section 430 of the Companies Act. As of now, when we are considering this appeal there is no pending suit as such. If that be the situation the Appellant ought to be permitted to resort to the process of redressal of his grievances permissible by way of a pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
