Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In the circumstances, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the Defendants are not entitled to leave to defend the suit as there is no defence whatsoever and the Plaintiff is entitled to a Summons for Judgment. Even otherwise according to the learned Senior Counsel the first submission based on the insufficiency of stamp on the instruments in question has been 28 SJ-21-2009-J.doc consistently held by the Courts to be a technical defence and not worthy of granting leave. As regards the defence based on invocation of pledged shares, the learned Senior Counsel would counter by canvassing a submission that there is no material on record to indicate that the Plaintiff has sold the pledged shares and realized the amount and in the absence of such categorical material the submission based on the exercise of voting rights by the Plaintiff does not carry the matter any further.

9. As the second defence based on invocation of pledged shares and consequences thereof is of a more substantive nature, I deem it in the fitness of things to consider the same first. Indisputably the Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 have pledged 10000 shares of Defendant No. 3 Company G.C. Property Private Ltd. with the Plaintiff under the Pledge Agreement dated 26th February, 2018. There is not much controversy over the fact that the Plaintiff invoked the pledge of the equity shares of Defendant No. 3 Company by notice dated 4th October, 2018. The learned counsel for the Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 invited the attention of the Court to clause 7 of the Notice of Invocation of pledge, to bolster up the submission that, post the invocation of the pledged shares, the Plaintiff has declared its animus that the Plaintiff will exercise 100% voting rights on all matters and affairs of GCC- the Defendant No. 3.