Delhi District Court
M/S Caparo Financial Solutions Ltd vs Akash Paul And Ors on 23 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DR. SHIRISH AGGARWAL: DISTRICT
JUDGE - 03: NEW DELHI DISTRICT: PATIALA HOUSE
COURTS : NEW DELHI
23.07.2024
CS No. 241/23
M/s Caparo Financial Solutions Ltd.
Vs.
Mr. Akash Paul & Ors.
ORDER
1. By this order, the application of M/s Caparo Mauritius Limited under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC for impleadment in the present suit will be decided.
2. Present suit has been filed by M/s Caparo Financial Solutions Ltd. Against Mr. Akash Paul, Mr. Raman Chopra, Mr. Vinod Kumar Bapna, Caparo Engineering India Ltd. And Caparo Maruti Ltd. for permanent injunction, damages for defamation, etc.
3. The suit has been instituted on the grounds that the defendants trespassed into the premises of the plaintiff, illegally obstructed in carrying out of business in the premises of the plaintiff and wrote false, derogatory, filthy and defamatory e-
CS No. 241/2023 M/s Caparo Financial Solutions Ltd. Vs. Mr. Akash Paul & Ors. Page 1 of 8 Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2024.07.23
16:45:30 +05'30'
mails to the Directors of the plaintiff. On the basis of these allegations, which have been elaborated in the plaint, the following prayers have been made:
(a) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their representatives from trespassing/entering the premises of the plaintiff without prior written authorization from the Directors of the plaintiff.
(b) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the functioning and peaceful existence of the plaintiff and its Directors, employees etc.
(c) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant no. 1 from sending or transmitting frivolous, derogatory, defamatory, abusive and threatening e-mails/texts/calls and from making such statements to the plaintiff and its representatives.
(d) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant no. 1 from publishing any frivolous, derogatory, abusive and defamatory information about the plaintiff.
(e) Pass a decree of permanent injunction directing the defendant to return all visiting cards and other documents stolen/taken away from the plaintiff's office on 26.05.2023.
(f) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from misusing the visiting cards and other CS No. 241/2023 M/s Caparo Financial Solutions Ltd. Vs. Mr. Akash Paul & Ors. Page 2 of 8 documents/information stolen/taken away from the plaintiff's office on 26.05.2023.
(g) Pass a decree of damages in the sum of Rs.50 lakhs for the wrongful loss caused to the plaintiff due to various acts of defamation committed by defendant no. 1.
4. Application for impleadment has been filed on the ground that illegal actions of the Directors of the plaintiff company are causing losses and degradation to the plaintiff company, besides loss of reputation to the Caparo Brand and personal reputation of Lord Swraj Paul, the ultimate owner and financier of the funds of the plaintiff company.
5. It is pleaded that the applicant is 25.51% share holder of the plaintiff company and Lord Swraj Paul holds 100% equity in the applicant company. It is stated that the plaintiff company was set up by Lord Swraj Paul and its affairs are being primarily managed by Mr. Dheeraj Vashisht.
6. It is stated that the constant mismanagement and misuse of funds of the plaintiff company by Mr. Dheeraj Vashisht has led to degradation of the plaintiff company. It is pleaded that the manner in which the plaintiff company is being run by Mr. Dheeraj Vashisht has been a cause of great concern for the applicant and its chairperson Lord Swraj Paul. Accordingly, Lord Swraj Paul directed and authorized his son Mr. Akash Paul, the defendant no. 1 herein, to investigate the affairs of plaintiff company.
CS No. 241/2023 M/s Caparo Financial Solutions Ltd. Vs. Mr. Akash Paul & Ors. Page 3 of 87. It is pleaded that due to the mismanagement of the plaintiff company, it is expedient that the books of the plaintiff company be thoroughly examined to understand the entire fraudulent acts of the management of the plaintiff company. Accordingly, the applicant and its chairperson requested the defendant no. 1 and other officers to visit the premises of the plaintiff to collect and collate data.
8. It is stated that the visits of the defendants to the office of the plaintiff company have been on the specific instructions of the Chairperson of the applicant company.
9. It is submitted that in order to conceal the mismanagement and illegal activities of the plaintiff company, the plaintiff, at the behest of Mr. Dheeraj Vashisht, instituted the present suit on false grounds and sought an injunction restraining the defendants from entering the premises.
10. It is stated that the applicant is left with no option, but to seek intervention in the present case to uncover the illegal actions of the Directors of the plaintiff company causing losses and degradation of the financial work of the plaintiff company and loss of reputation to the Caparo Brand and personal reputation of Lord Swaraj Paul. It is submitted that the applicant seeks variation/recall of order dated 09.06.2023 by which the defendants and their representatives were restrained from entering/trespassing into the plaintiff's office.
CS No. 241/2023 M/s Caparo Financial Solutions Ltd. Vs. Mr. Akash Paul & Ors. Page 4 of 811. Reply to the application has been filed. Averments made by the applicant have been denied. It is contended that the allegations made in the application have no connection with the present lis.
12. Rejoinder to the reply has also been filed, in which the averments made in the reply have been denied.
13. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.
14. The plaintiff, as the dominus litis, is vested with the right to choose the parties against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. In this regard, reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Kranti Arora Vs. Digjam Ltd. RFA (OS) No.7/2011 dated 08.07.2022.
15. However, this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. By exercising jurisdiction under this provision, the Court may add a party to the suit if the Court is satisfied that the presence of the party is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit.
16. In the case of Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal (2005) 6 SCC 733, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held the following:
"16. That apart, from a plain reading of the expression used in sub-rule (2) Order 1 Rule 10 CPC "all the questions involved in the suit" it is abundantly clear that the legislature clearly meant CS No. 241/2023 M/s Caparo Financial Solutions Ltd. Vs. Mr. Akash Paul & Ors. Page 5 of 8 that the controversies raised as between the parties to the litigation must be gone into only, that is to say, controversies with regard to the right which is set up and the relief claimed on one side and denied on the other and not the controversies which may arise between the plaintiff-appellant and the defendants inter se or questions between the parties to the suit and a third party. In our view, therefore, the court cannot allow adjudication of collateral matters so as to convert a suit for specific performance of contract for sale into a complicated suit for title between the plaintiff-appellant on one hand and Respondents 2 and 3 and Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 on the other. This addition, if allowed, would lead to a complicated litigation by which the trial and decision of serious questions which are totally outside the scope of the suit would have to be gone into."
17. The cause of action in the present suit is specifically against the defendants herein. There is specific allegations against the defendants that they had trespassed and forcefully entered into the office of the plaintiff. There is also an allegation that the defendants stole/took away certain documents from the office. There is also an allegation that the defendant no. 1 has been sending derogatory and defamatory e-mails/texts. There is no allegation against the applicant. Prayer is to restrain only the defendants from repeating the said illegal acts. There is also a prayer for recovery of damages caused due to the acts of defamation committed by the defendant no. 1.
CS No. 241/2023 M/s Caparo Financial Solutions Ltd. Vs. Mr. Akash Paul & Ors. Page 6 of 818. The prayer is for the defendants to pay damages on account of defamation. In case the Court later decrees the suit, none of the reliefs prayed for can be granted against the applicant herein. There is no cause of action against the applicant.
19. Keeping in view the cause of action and the prayers made in the plaint, this Court is of the opinion that the presence of the applicant as a defendant in the present suit is neither necessary nor proper.
20. The averments of mismanagement of the plaintiff company need not be adjudicated upon in the present suit. Section 241 of the Companies Act 2013 empowers the Company Law Tribunal to adjudicate such disputes. Section 430 of the Companies Act bars the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of a matter which the Tribunal is empowered to determine.
21. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case of Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal, the expression "all the questions involved in the suit", as used in Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC clearly means that the controversies raised between the parties to the litigation must be gone into only and not the controversies which may arise between the plaintiff and a third party. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Court cannot allow adjudication of collateral matters which are totally outside the scope of the suit.
CS No. 241/2023 M/s Caparo Financial Solutions Ltd. Vs. Mr. Akash Paul & Ors. Page 7 of 822. It is the own case of the applicant that the defendants had acted on its instructions and are its representatives. Defendant no. 1 is stated to be son of the Chairperson of the applicant company. If that is so then the interest of the applicant company and of its Chairman should be protected by the defendants themselves in the present suit. The defendants no. 1 to 3 have already filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC, which is pending for consideration. There is no reason for impleading the applicant separately as a defendant.
23. For the above reasons, the application of M/s Caparo Mauritius Limited under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC for impleadment in the present suit is dismissed.
(Announced in the open Court on 23rd July, 2024) SHIRISH Digitally signed by SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2024.07.23 16:45:30 +05'30' (Dr. Shirish Aggarwal) Districtu Judge/New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts New Delhi. CS No. 241/2023 M/s Caparo Financial Solutions Ltd. Vs. Mr. Akash Paul & Ors. Page 8 of 8