Delhi District Court
Nishitika Investments & Finance Pvt. ... vs Rita Goyal & Anr on 24 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. A.K. CHAWLA : DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE (HQS.) : DELHI
RCA - 1/2015
Unique Case ID No.02401C0329502015
Nishitika Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd. .... Appellant
Versus
Rita Goyal & Anr. .... Respondents
AND
RCA - 2/2015
Unique Case ID No.02401C0329532015
Nishitika Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd. .... Appellant
Versus
Anil Kumar (HUF) & Anr. .... Respondents
AND
RCA - 3/2015
Unique Case ID No.02401C0329552015
Nishitika Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd. .... Appellant
Versus
Oona Singh & Anr. .... Respondents
RCA -1/15 to 4/15 Page 1/6
AND
RCA - 4/2015
Unique Case ID No.02401C0330722015
Nishitika Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd. .... Appellant
Versus
Satpal Goyal & Anr. .... Respondents
ORDER
Vide this common order, I proceed to dispose off the four appeals being RCA-01/2015 titled M/s Nishitika Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rita Goyal & Anr.; RCA - 02/2015 titled M/s Nishitika Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anil Kumar (HUF) & Anr.; RCA- 03/2015 M/s Nishitika Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Oona Singh & Anr.; and, RCA - 04/2015 titled M/s Nishitika Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satpal Goyal & Anr. against similar order dated 5.5.2015 passed by the ld. Civil Judge-03 (Central), whereby, the ld. Civil Judge, while dismissing an application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the Suit, rejected the plaint U/o 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC being barred by limitation.
RCA -1/15 to 4/15 Page 2/6
2. Succinctly, the facts relevant for the disposal of the appeals are that the appellant had filed four Suits for cancellation and declaration of shares as null and void abinitio, being without any consideration, on the similar facts. Suits proceeded on the premise that the appellant was in the business of share and stock brokerage, underwriter and agent for subscribing to and for the sale and purchase of securities, stocks, shares, debentures, bonds, units or certificates of mutual funds etc. It was alleged that the respondent no.1 was illegal occupier of the shares of the appellant, as the respondent no.1 did not pay any consideration to the appellant against the shares of Virtual Global Education Ltd. (formerly known as TechDNA Solutions Ltd.), which were delivered to the respondent no.1 in the year 2003. It was averred that after the transfer of the shares in the name of the respondent no.1, the respondent no.1 had assured the appellant that the respondent no.1 shall pay the equal amount of the face value of the shares to the appellant or return back the shares and that, it was only on the perusal of the accounts the last year, the appellant found that neither the shares nor the equal face value of the shares was transferred/paid by the respondent no.1 inspite of the many reminders RCA -1/15 to 4/15 Page 3/6 and request of the appellant. According to the appellant, the respondent no.1 had the malafide intention to grab the shares, as the respondent no.1 had not paid the value of the shares to the appellant. By the Suits filed, the appellant sought declaration, declaring and adjudging thereby, the share transfer receipt/certificate of the year 2003 as null and void abinitio and non-est and further declaration to the effect that the said written instruments were unenforceable as against the appellant and had no sanctity in the eyes of law. Suits so instituted were accompanied with an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the suit in short 'the said application'. 'The said application' proceeded on the premise that the last year, appellant had conducted internal audit of accounts and found that some shareholders did not pay the share price or did not return the share to the appellant and that, though, the appellant had tried to conciliate the matter with the respondent no.1, the respondent no.1 had refused to settle the matter. Vide the similar orders, the ld. Civil Judge, while dismissing the application filed seeking condonation of delay, rejected the plaint U/o 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant has preferred the appeal in hand.
RCA -1/15 to 4/15 Page 4/6
3. I have heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant and perused the record carefully.
4. 'The said application' does not even indicate the provision of law under which the court could condone the delay in the institution of such civil suit. It appears, neither the appellant nor the ld. Civil Judge adverted to this basic question of law. There is no provision of law, which permits condonation of delay in the institution of a civil suit. Suffice to say, the extension of the prescribed period of limitation applies in cases of the appeals or the applications, when sufficient cause is shown under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Section 5 of the Limitation Act is therefore, of no avail to the appellant by any stretch of imagination.
It is the own case of the appellant that the right to sue had first accrued sometime in the year 2003 or at the most, when the shares came to be transferred in the name of the respondent no.1. Suits, subject matter of the appeals, have come to be filed only in the year 2015 and 'the said application' by itself proceeds on the premise that the suit was time barred. In the absence of any provision of law providing for condoning the delay on sufficient cause shown or RCA -1/15 to 4/15 Page 5/6 otherwise, 'the said application' was wholly misconceived. The reliance placed upon judgment dated 3.10.2007 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Appeal (Civil) 4626 of 2007 Ram Prakash Gupta Vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors. and judgment dated 29.4.2011 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in RFA (OS) no.80/2009 M/s Texem Engineering Vs. M/s Texcomash Export by the ld. Counsel for the appellant is also wholly misconceived. Judgments (supra) relate to the underlying principles for maintaining the application U/o 7 R. 11 CPC by the defending party which seeks rejection of the plaint for the suit being barred by limitation. In the case in hand however, the plaintiff-appellant by itself concedes that the suit is time barred, but, seeks condonation of delay, which, as observed to earlier, is beyond the canons of law.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
Announced in the open Court (A.K. Chawla)
on this 24th day of August, 2015 District & Sessions Judge (HQs)
Delhi
RCA -1/15 to 4/15 Page 6/6