ANIL NANDA Vs. ESCORTS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'cpc') were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. In IA No. 9339/2005, the defendant No. 1 has sought the rejection of the plaint on the plea that the suit appears from the statements in the plaint to be barred by law inasmuch as it is alleged that the condition precedent of taking leave of the court under section 92, CPC has not been fulfilled. The plaint is also sought to be rejected on the ground of limitation and acquiescence. In IA No. 9359/2005, the defendant No. 2 has sought the rejection of the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action. The plea of limitation has also been taken.

(2.) DR Singhvi, appearing on behalf of the defendant No. 1 / applicant, drew the attention of the court to the various averments made in the amended plaint. In paragraph 7, it has been mentioned that in the year 1981, the Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, Delhi (EHIRC-Delhi) was registered as a charitable society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with the objective of running a world class specialist heart institution for the general public and to carry on research and development in the field of medicine. It is further stated that the aims and objects of EHIRC-Delhi clearly and categorically provided that the society would be a charitable one and was not started with a view to earn profits and clause 23 of the Rules and Regulations clearly provided that no part of the societies funds, or the income thereof shall inure to the benefit of any governor, officer or member of the society. It was also stated in the said paragraph that the moving light behind the formation of this society was Late Shri H. P. Nanda, father of the plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 4, who had conceived the idea of setting up a charitable institute of world fame, to help the weaker sections of society and to create a medical infrastructure for the citizens of India.

(3.) IN paragraph 1 of the plaint, it has been stated that the plaintiff No. 1 (Mr. Anil Nanda) is a former member of the governing body of ehirc-Delhi and that he was representing the plaintiff No. 2 on the governing board of EHIRC-Delhi. The plaintiff No. 2 has been described in paragraph 2 of the plaint as a company registered under the Companies Act, 1913 and as a substantial donor towards the creation of the corpus of ehirc-Delhi having contributed about Rs 1. 5 crores approximately and, therefore, the plaintiff No. 2 was vitally interested in the present proceedings.