Sri Dundappa Somappa Devanganvi vs Sri Ambanna B Yaligar on 3 January, 2013

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Dundappa Somappa Devanganvi vs Sri Ambanna B Yaligar on 3 January, 2013

Bench: Subhash B. Adi

                             :1:



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

          DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JANUARY 2013

                          BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASH B. ADI

           WRIT PETITION NO.62067/2010(GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI DUNDAPPA SOMAPPA DEVANGANVI
AGE : 55 YEARS, OCC : NIL
R/O : PLOT NO.1753, SECTOR NO.10
ANJANEYA NAGAR,
M M EXTENSION, BELGAUM
                                        ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A.G. MULAWADMATH, ADV)


AND:

1.     SRI AMBANNA B YALIGAR
       AGE : MAJOR, OCC : BUSINESS
       R/O : TALKIES ROAD, MUNOLI
       TQ : SOUNDATTI DIST : BELGAUM

2.     THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
       SHREE RENUKA SUGAR LTD.
       HAVALOCK ROA, B C NO.105
       CAMP-BELGAUM

3.   THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
     KARVY COMPUTER SHARES PVT LTD.
     KARVY HOUSE 46, AVENUE-4
     STREET NO.1, BANJARARA HILLS
     HYDERABAD
                                      ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.R. HEGDE, ADV. FOR R1. R2 SD. NOTICE TO R3 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
                               :2:




     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO AN WRIT OF
CERTIORARI    BE   ISSUED   AND   THEREBY     THE   ORDER
DTD.30/11/2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.20/07 BY THE III ADDL.CIVIL
JUDGE (JR.DN) BELGAUM AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                            ORDER

Petitioner has called in question the order dated 30/11/2009 passed in O.S.No.20/2007 on the file of III Additional Civil Judge( Junior Division), Belgaum.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff has sought for declaration declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of 500 shares each bearing certificate NOs.5177, 5178 and 5179 with distinctive numbers from 2585501 to 2587000 and other reliefs.

3. The trial Court has dismissed the suit holding that provisions of Section 111(5) and(6) Clause (a) and sub section 7 clause (a) of the Companies Act provides for remedy to decide the ownership or title to the shares. In :3: view of the same, trial court held that the suit is not maintainable.

4. No doubt the suit can be dismissed if the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly or by implication is ousted. However, such mechanism must provide for complete adjudication of the dispute.

5. However, the trial Court has not considered as to whether the relief sought for by the plaintiff could be finally adjudicated by the mechanism provided under the Companies Act. In this case plaintiff is seeking declaration and for transfer of share. Before invoking the provisions of Section 9 of the CPC or under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC, the Court must find out as to whether the jurisdiction of the Court is expressly or by implication is ousted or the suit is forbidden by law. In this regard proper scrutiny of the pleadings in the plaint is necessary.

:4:

6. In my opinion, the trial court except referring to the provisions, has not looked into to the contents of the pleadings in the plaint and the relief sought for. Bundle of facts and the relief sought for, give rise to cause of action, as such the matter requires reconsideration.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30/11/2009 passed in O.S.No.20/07 by III Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Belgaum, is quashed. The matter is remitted to the trial Court for reconsideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE kmv

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court