Madras High Court
The Chairman vs K. Kaliyaperumal on 4 August, 2022
Author: R.N. Manjula
Bench: R.N.Manjula
CRP(PD)No.2485 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
CRP(PD).No.2485 of 2022
and CMP.Nos.12846 to 12848 of 2022
1. The Chairman
The Committee of Management
Madras Race Club,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 010.
2. The Secretary
Madras Race Club,
Guindy, Chennai 600 010. ... Petitioners
Vs
K. Kaliyaperumal ... Respondent
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of
India to allow the petition by striking of the Plaint in O.S.No.5031 of 2022
from the file of the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian
Senior Counsel for
Mr.T.Balaji
For Respondent : Mr.G.Murugendran for Caveator
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(PD)No.2485 of 2022
ORDER
Civil Revision Petition has been preferred to strike of the Plaint filed in O.S.No.5031 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The Civil Revision Petitioners are the defendants against whom the the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction. Pending suit an application for temporary injunction has also been filed in I.A.No.2 & 3 of 2022 for seeking interim orders and it is reliably learnt that orders have also been granted. In these circumstances, both the defendants have filed the Civil Revision Petition stating that the suit itself not maintainable due to bar provided under Section 430 of Companies Act, 2013.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the civil revision petitioners attracted the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court held in Viji Joseph and another Vs. P. Chander and others reported in [2020] 223 Company case 594 (Madras). In the said judgment it is held that the dispute regarding voting through electronic means in the company has to be 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(PD)No.2485 of 2022 filed before the Tribunal by invoking the powers of Tribunal under Section 242 of the Companies Act. It is also held that the suits will not lie in the Civil Court in view of the bar under Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court held in Shashi Prakash Khemka Vs. NEPC Micon Ltd., and reported in [2019] 212 Company case 385 (SC) the learned Division Bench has held that the case of similar nature will not lie before the Civil Court and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is completely barred. On the similar point judgments have been rendered in other cases in Chiranjeevi Ratnam & Others Vs. Ramesh and Another reported in [2020] 222 Company cases 85 and also in yet another case of Albert lael and others Vs Operation Mercy India Foundation and others reported in [2020] 222 Company cases 97 (NCLT).
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that on earlier occassion similar such case has been filed before the High Court in C.S.No.216/2018 against the very same defendants by another member and the same was challenged by the defendants therein by way of preferring petition Order 7 Rule 11 to reject the plaint, however, the same was dismissed. Having known that the right procedure is to invoke the remedy provided in the civil 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(PD)No.2485 of 2022 procedure code were Order 7 Rule 11, the defendants have filed this Civil Revision Petition to strike out the plaint, which is not maintainable.
5. No doubt under Section 430 of the Companies Act the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of the matters which falls under the Company Law Tribunal or the appellate Tribunal is barred.
6. The learned counsel for the civil revision petitioners submitted that the present dispute squarely falls under Chapter XVI which deals about the prevention of oppression and mismanagement. It is further submitted that if the manner in which the affairs of the Company are done by any of the person at the helm of the affairs of the Company and if the aggrieved person happens to be an another director he can only challenge the same by seeking remedy under Section 242 of the Companies Act before the Company Law Tribunal and not by way of filing the Civil Suit. So the arguments of the respective counsels would only show that there is a point to be decided whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred in view of Section 430 of the Companies Act or whether the remedy sought on the allegations made does not attract the class of actions contemplated under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, so as to 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(PD)No.2485 of 2022 exclude the jurisdiction of the Company Law Tribunal. Unless the matter is heard at length in respect of the facts pleaded before the Court it cannot be presumed that the jurisdiction has been wrongly exercised by the Civil Court. Even if the jurisdiction has been wrongly invoked by over looking the bar, the person aggrieved is not remediless under the Civil Procedure Code. The aggrieved person can approach the Civil Court by way of filing a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure especially by invoking sub clause
(d) and invite the civil Court to pass an order and it is not necessary to bring an action under article 227.
7. With the above observations the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. However the Civil Revision Petitioners can have liberty to file petition under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
04.08.2022 Speaking order/Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No dpq Issue order copy on 05.08.2022 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(PD)No.2485 of 2022 R.N. MANJULA, J.
dpq To The learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai CRP(PD).No.2485 of 2022 Issue order copy on 05.08.2022 04.08.2022 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis