(1.) By this Appeal, the Appellant, who was the original plaintiff in Suit No.777 of 2014 (the "suit") is seeking to impugn the order and judgment dated 8 and 11/9/2015 of dismissal of the suit passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court holding the suit as barred by limitation.
(2.) The facts that comprise the background of this ligation are that by a family arrangement of 1995-96, the businesses and assets of the Gopal Raheja group consisting of Late Gopal Raheja (also known as Mr. G.L.Raheja), the Appellant, the Respondent no.1, Respondent no.2 and Respondent no.5 vested in the Appellant, Respondent no.1, 5 and their father Mr. Gopal Raheja, Appellant herein (the Plaintiff in the suit) is the eldest daughter of late Gopal L. Raheja who passed away on 18/3/2014. The Respondent no.1 herein (the Defendant No.1 in the suit), is the son of late Gopal L. Raheja and younger brother of the Plaintiff. Respondent No.2 herein (the Defendant no.2 in the suit), is the wife of Defendant no.1/Respondent No.1. The Respondents No.3 and 4 herein (the Defendants No. 3 and 4 in the suit), Gayatri and Aditi, were the minor daughters of Defendant no.1/Respondent No.1 and Defendant no.2/Respondent No.2 and grand-daughters of late Gopal L. Raheja. The Respondent no.5 herein (the Defendant no.5 in the suit), is the younger daughter of late Gopal L. Raheja and younger sister of the Plaintiff/Appellant. The Plaintiff/Appellant and the Defendants no.1 and 5/Respondents No.1 and 5 are closely related to each other as brother and sisters being the children of late Gopal L. Raheja and his wife late Sheila G. Raheja. The Appellant claims that the vesting was equal and collective and that the Appellant was entitled to her share in the assets and properties of the Gopal Raheja group which is denied by the Respondents.
(3.) It is the case of the Appellant that the family arrangement of 1995-96 as well as of 1987 and Gopal Raheja's Suit No.2363 of 2012, would show that Gopal Raheja was the karta of the Gopal Raheja HUF and Respondent no.1 was a party to the family arrangement and even signed the same. Although the Respondent no.1 does not dispute his signature on the family arrangement, the share of the Appellant is denied by him. It is claimed that first Respondent's signature amounts to judicial admission binding on him in view of the settled law and therefore the exception in Sec. 4(3)(a) of the Benami Act would apply to him. That, therefore, the present suit is not barred by the prohibition contained in the Benami Act in the light of Ss. 2(9)(A)(b)(i) and (ii) and Sec. 4(3)(b) of the said Act.
ABOUT US "REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD." is a Company incorporated in 1991 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Since its inception to 1995, the Company was busy in carrying out the activities related to various Banks' Job Work..
Read More
Sales: sales@the-laws.com
Support: info@the-laws.com
8000853936
9376168072
27, 4TH FLOOR, Agrawal Center, Ashram Road, Income Tax, Ahmadabad 380014.
LOGIN