JAI PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. LALIT BHASIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the order dated 30.11.2002 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow allowing the application 25A under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The copy of the application for amendment of the plaint of the suit filed by the opposite party is Annexure-S-1 and the objection filed by the defendant-revisionist is Annexure-S-2. It appears that the plaintiff filed a suit for the following reliefs :

(2.) After the filing of the suit, the plaintiff sought an ad-interim Injunction and when the injunction was not granted and meeting was held, the plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint with the allegations that the defendant has already acquired shares of M/s. J. P. Hotels Limited from the persons and the corporate body in the promoter group including the company, namely, J. P. Enterprises Limited, J. P. Ventures Limited and also allotted shares and the decision with respect to providing dividend were also taken in the Board's meeting held on 29.7.2002 and this dividend is also to be provided/distributed to the persons to whom the impugned shares have been transferred. It is also alleged that in view of the subsequent development, the reliefs earlier sought be deleted and substituted by the following reliefs :

(3.) It is against this application for amendment, the defendant filed objection. The defendant-revisionist contended that the proposed amendment concerned the allotment of the shares and It Is the Security and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as "S.E.B.I.") which is proper forum to agitate the same. It also contended that the declaratory relief as proposed to be sought through the amendment cannot be granted by the Court inasmuch as the petitioner is not seeking any declaration with regard to his legal character as shareholder of the company but is seeking to undo the majority rule which majority rule being a creature of the Companies Act, 1956, no judicial order can be passed against the landlord of the provisions of the Companies Act. It was also contended that the court below lacks jurisdiction to interfere the conduct of the company meeting. The cause of action does not continue to arise to the plaintiff. In short, the main objection of the defendant-revisionist against the application for amendment of the plaint is that the civil court has no jurisdiction to enter into the cause of action to the plaintiff-opposite party.