Date: 09-07-2019
Reason For Adjournment: court time is over
Next Purpose: NOTICE OF MOTION
Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2019
Date: 20-07-2019
Business: PW with advocate Mr. Wanvari for Plaintiff present
Advocate Ms. Nicchani along with advocate Mr. Yadav for Defendant no.1 to 4 present and filed an application on behalf of Defendant no.1 to 3 under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, t.o.r. O-Plaintiffs to say. Copy of application served by advocate for Defendant no.1 to 4 to advocate for Plaintiff.
Court is busy in dictating Judgment in suit no.6999/06, hence case is adjourned to 29/07/2019 for NM hearing.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 29-07-2019
Date: 29-07-2019
Business: Advocate Mr. Wanvari for Plaintiff present and filed say to Exh.98, t.o.r. Copy served to advocate Ms. Nicchani for Defendant.
Advocate Ms. Nicchani for Defendant no.1 to 4 present
Heard advocate Ms. Nicchani in respect of NM no.2482/2019. Advocate for Defendant no.1 to 4 pointed out prayer clause from the plaint. Advocate Ms. Nicchani referred para no.3 to 5 of affidavit filed in support of NM are material and para nos.11 to 13 from affidavit of reply of NM are disclosed by Plaintiff for rebuting para nos.3 to 5. It is further argued that claim of Defendants is covered mainly by order 7 Rule 11(a) and Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC. Advocate Ms. Nicchani argued that names of all the Plaintiffs are removed from the list of board of directors and said removal is challenged by Plaintiffs. According to advocate Ms. Nicchani as Plaintiffs are not directors of the company they should have filed this suit in personal capacity and not of the director of the company. It was argued that at any stage of the proceeding prayer under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC can be made. By referring the contents of affidavits filed in support of NM and affidavit filed in support of its reply, it is argued that NM is necessary to be made absolute because director of companies has issued certificate in favour of Defendants showing that names of Plaintiffs are removed from the list of directors of company as per the resolution dated 20/08/2003. It is argued that said certificate was referred to PW1 at the time of his cross-examination and it is exhibited. Lastly it is submitted that advocate Mr. Yadav who is coming to the Court will help in searching said exhibited certificate. Meanwhile, court can hear arguments of Plaintiff.
Advocate Mr. Wanvari for Plaintiff argued that the documents referred as Exh.S to Z are referred by Plaintiff as forged documents and on the basis of those documents injunction is sought by Plaintiff. It is further argued that para no.22 to 32 of the plaint disclosed the dates of cause of action and therefore it can not be said that no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint. It is strongly argued that for the decision of application Under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC contents of plaint only are to be considered and even Written Statements or documents filed by Defendants can be considered. It is pointed out that the objection under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC if would have been raised by Defendants at the earliest, it would have been said that it was raised at threshold. According to Plaintiff\''s advocate after partly recording cross-examination of PW-1, this application is moved hence it can not be said that the issue is raised at threshold. Plaintiffs advocate referred Exh.A, Exh.K and Exh.S to Z annexed to the plaint and argued that Plaintiff has not challenged the removal of the directors but Plaintiff has sought injunction only. Lastly, it is argued that Plaintiff\''s case is that documents which are referred as Exh.S to Z are forged documents and said fact can be proved by Plaintiff and it can be disproved by Defendants. However, said issue can not be the subject matter of application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. It is argued that Exh.S was signed by Defendant no.1 in January 2006, even though the resolution referred in Exh.S is dated 20/08/2003. It is argued that Exh.S was submitted by Defendants in the office of Registrar of Companies on 19/01/2006 and hence the cause of action shown by the Plaintiff in plaint is perfectly correct and it can not said that in plaint cause of action is not disclosed or Plaintiff\''s claim is barred by Specific provision of Law.
Heard advocate Ms. Nicchani in respect of Chamber Summons no.1206/19. It is submitted that Defendants have got certain documents to show that the person referred in the plaint were never the Director of Plaintiff company and in para no.5 of the plaint it is contended that Mr. B. K. Nevatia and his family members were director of Plaintiff company in between 16/07/1973 to 13/08/1991. Hence to rebut said fact the newly known documents to Defendants are necessary to be brought on record by making amendment in Written Statement. It is argued that the grounds shown in the affidavit filed in support of Chamber Summons are important circumstances, hence amendment in the Written Statement is not totally barred after commencement of recording of evidence because even at appellate stage, amendments can be allowed if new evidence is found out by the parties, hence Chamber Summons is necessary to be made absolute.
Heard advocate Mr. Wanvari in respect of Chamber Summons no.1206/19. Advocate Mr. Wanvari referred para no.5 from schedule of amendment annexed to Chamber Summons and argued that in said paragraph Defendants have contended that in the year 2013 they have got the knowledge of the facts of proposed amendment however, the Chamber Summons for amendment in Written Statement is filed in the year 2019 without explaining the fact that what kind of due diligence is shown by Defendants in respect of brining those facts on record. It is argued that after commencement of trial Defendants can not claim amendment in Written Statement. The fact of filing of suit no.2125/05 in City Civil Court is also brought to the notice of court and it is pointed out that said suit filed against two of the Defendants was decreed by Court and its execution is pending because inspite of the appeal filed by Defendants decree of said suit is not stayed by Hon\''ble High Court. Order of Hon\''ble High Court passed in first appeal no.521/10 is also brought to the notice of the Court along with the facts along with order dated 01/03/2016 passed by Hon\''ble High Court in NM no.2323/15 in suit no.870/15. According to Plaintiff\''s advocate for the want of due diligence Chamber Summons is apt to be dismissed because the facts shown in proposed amendment are already challenged in suit n.870/15 before Hon\''ble High Court. As such arguments heard.
Case is adjourned to 08/08/2019 for Order on NM and Chamber Summons and argument in respect of application Exh.98.
Next Purpose: NM ORDERS
Next Hearing Date: 08-08-2019
Date: 08-08-2019
Business: Advocate Mr. Wanvari for Plaintiff present
Advocate Mr. Yadav for Defendant no.1 to 4 present
Court is busy in dictating order on NM in suit no.1646/14 and suit no.3346/09, hence case is adjourned to 14/08/2019 for Order on NM.
Next Purpose: NM ORDERS
Next Hearing Date: 14-08-2019
Date: 14-08-2019
Business: Matter called out (11.38am)
Plaintiff and his advocate absent.
Adv.Saiyed for defendant no.1 present.
Today matter received from Court Room No.09
Matter adj for hearing on N/M No.2482/19 on 31/08/19.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 31-08-2019
Date: 31-08-2019
Business: Matter called out(2.56pm)
Adv.Ashok Wanwani for plaintiff present.
Defendant and his advocate absent.
At the request of plaintiff matter kept back.
Second time matter called out(3.06pm)
Adv.Ashok Wanwani for plaintiff present.
Adv.Chetan Yadav for defendant no.1 to 4 present.
Heard both the side.
Matter adj for order on 09/09/19.
Next Purpose: NOTICE OF MOTION
Next Hearing Date: 09-09-2019
Date: 31-08-2019
Business: Matter called out(2.56pm)
Adv.Ashok Wanwani for plaintiff present.
Defendant and his advocate absent.
At the request of plaintiff matter kept back.
Second time matter called out(3.06pm)
Adv.Ashok Wanwani for plaintiff present.
Adv.Chetan Yadav for defendant no.1 to 4 present.
Heard both the side.
Matter adj for order on 09/09/19.
Next Purpose: CHAMBER SUMMONS
Next Hearing Date: 09-09-2019
Date: 31-08-2019
Business: Matter called out(2.56pm)
Adv.Ashok Wanwani for plaintiff present.
Defendant and his advocate absent.
At the request of plaintiff matter kept back.
Second time matter called out(3.06pm)
Adv.Ashok Wanwani for plaintiff present.
Adv.Chetan Yadav for defendant no.1 to 4 present.
Heard both the side.
Matter adj for order on 09/09/19.
Next Purpose: ORDER
Next Hearing Date: 09-09-2019
Date: 09-09-2019
Business: Matter called out( 3.15 p.m.)
Adv. Mr. Ashok K. Wanwani for plaintiff present.
Adv. Mr. Samarth Patel for defendant no. 1 to 4 present.
FRSR order passed in Exh.98
1.Application below Exh.98 is hereby rejected.
FRSR order passed in NM No. 2482 of 2019
1.The Notice of Motion No. 2482 of 2019 is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be payable by the defendant no. 3 to the plaintiff within 15 days from the date of order.
2.Notice of Motion No. 2482 of 2019 is disposed off accordingly.
Exh. 98 .N.M. 2482 of 2019 rejected with cost of Rs. 10,000/-
Nature Of Disposal: DISMISSED
Disposal Date: 09-09-2019
