SHARMILA SHETTY Vs. SOMNATH CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question involved in the present appeal is whether the suit filed by the appellant for a declaration that the recording of the name of the Respondent No.1 as the holder of 2,42,430 shares in the books and registers of the Respondent No.2 company is illegal, fraudulent, null and void is maintainable before the City Civil Court, Calcutta. The City Civil Court was of the view that such a suit seeking the aforesaid declaration besides several other reliefs including that of a permanent injunction is not maintainable before the City Civil Court, Calcutta. The Court has held that it had no jurisdiction to try such a suit in view of the provisions of the City Civil Court Act, 1953 and the rules framed thereunder.

(2.) Hemendra Prasad Barooah was the Chairman and Managing Director of the Respondent No.2 company till he expired. The appellant, his youngest daughter, holds 38% of the paid up capital of the Respondent No.2 company and claims to be the single largest shareholder. After the appellant's father's death, she found from a declaration made by the company that 2,42,430 shares originally standing in the name of her father were transferred to the name of Respondent No.1. The appellant claims that the shares were never transferred by her father during his life time and that they were standing in her father's name till he expired on 31st July, 2013. According to the appellant, the Respondent No.1 was an employee of the company and had unduly influenced the decisions of her father who was ailing prior to his death. The appellant claims that her father could never have named the Respondent No.1 as his nominee for the shares held by him. Therefore, the transfer of shares to the name of Respondent No.1 after her father's death was illegal. The appellant therefore filed the present suit being T.S. No.306 of 2014 for the following reliefs:

(3.) She also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 for an interim injunction.