GAURISHANKAR NEEKLANTH KALYANI Vs. SULOCHANA NEEKLANTH KALYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all the above captioned company petitions filed by the petitioner under section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') seeking rectification of register of members of the respective companies, arrayed as R1 -company in each petition, by inserting her name in place of R4, the R3 to R5/applicants herein have filed the company applications in each company petition challenging the maintainability and seeking its dismissal on the grounds stated therein. In view of the reason that in all the applications common question of law and facts arise for consideration, therefore, for the sake of brevity, convenience and to avoid repetition, all the applications were clubbed together for the purpose of hearing. The same are being disposed of through following common order. The CA No. 100 of 2011 filed in CP No. 19 of 2011 is treated as leading case. The copy of order, therefore, shall be placed on record of each application/petition. At the outset, I would like to mention that normally, in a suit/petition either filed before a civil court/tribunal or quasi -judicial body, the common rule of procedure and practice is that, if the defendant/respondent seeks to challenge the maintainability of a suit/petition at a threshold stage, the respondent before entering into the defence by way of filing written statement/reply, is entitled to file an application containing the grounds upon which such party seeks to challenge the maintainability of the suit/petition. However, such challenge would be strictly confined to the facts pleaded in the suit/petition. Thereafter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the sides if the court/quasi -judicial body, comes to the conclusion that the facts disclosed in the suit/petition are such which disentitle the petitioner to claim the reliefs sought for, the suit/petition may be dismissed at the threshold stage. However, in the event, court finds the suit/petition maintainable, it may ask the respondents to file its detailed reply. The court may also conclude that the ground of challenge being a mixed question of facts and law will be taken into consideration in the final judgment. The purpose of application of such rule of procedure is to avoid decision of a case in piece -meal and to curb delay in the final decision of the suit/petition.

(2.) FROM the perusal of the record, it is noticed that the petitions were filed on 2nd June, 2011. Replies to the petitions were filed on behalf of R3 to R5 on 27th June, 2011, by R1 on 28th June, 2011 and by R4 on 12th August, 2011. The record further reveals that the rejoinder and sur -rejoinder were then exchanged and, thus, the pleadings were completed in all the petitions.

(3.) FURTHER , from the perusal of the averments made in the applications, it is seen that the grounds taken by the respondents/applicants in the applications filed in the respective petitions are confined only to the extent that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the applications; and that she has suppressed the material and vital facts and documents in her petitions. Thus, she has approached the Bench with unclean hands. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitions are liable to be dismissed at the threshold stage being not maintainable.