Whether Civil Court is competent to determine disputed question of ownership of shares in family companies?

-

 


Shubham Budhiraja[1]

A holds share in family companies and LLP and after his death, his son and family acquire ownership in these companies and properties. B, A’s wife, filed civil suit and made Companies and LLP as parties. Defendant objected the jurisdiction of civil court on ground of bar under Section 430 of Companies act, 2013. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court rejected the said objection and held that civil court has jurisdiction to determine title in shares in the company especially when corporate body is a family enterprise. The Jurisdiction of NCLT is summary in nature which cannot decide complicated questions of fact involving evidence and cross-examination.[2]    

 

(I)                 In Jai Mahal Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Devraj Singh and Ors., (2016) 1 SCC 423, It was held that there is a thin line in appreciating the scope of jurisdiction of the Company Court/Company Law Board. The jurisdiction is exclusive if the matter truly relates to rectification but if the issue is alien to rectification, such matter may not be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Company Court/Company Law Board.

 

(II)               In Aruna Oswal v. Pankaj Oswal, (2020) 8 SCC 79, It was held that the decision in a civil suit would be binding between the parties on the question of right, title, or interest. It is the domain of a civil court to determine the right, title and interest in an estate in a suit for partition.

 

(III)             In Bakshi Faiz Ahmad v. Bakshi Farooq Ahmad, (2018) 211 Comp Cas 340, It was held that section 58 of the Companies Act, provides that rectification of register of members has to be decided by Tribunal and as per Section 430, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. At the same time, it is also a trite law that Tribunal has a power only to decide the issue of rectification of register of members and has no power to decide the issue of title. It is apt to mention here that as per Section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956, the Company Law Board was empowered to decide the issue of title also. The word ‘title’ has not been included in Section 58 of the Companies Act, 2013. Even while considering Section 111A, it was held by the Supreme Court that a seriously disputed question of title cannot be decided by the Company Court or Company Law Board. This conclusion was arrived at by the Supreme Court by taking into consideration jurisdiction of the Company Law Board being summary in nature. The procedure in National Company Law Tribunal constituted under the Companies Act, 2013, is also summary in nature

 

 


[1] Advocate, Delhi High Court [LLB, ACS, BCOM(H)], Budhirajalawchambers@gmail.com

[2] CS(OS) 589/2021, Delhi High Court Judgment dated 29/07/2022

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

REPUGANCY UNDER ARTICLE 254 & TEST OF VALIDATING LAW

-
Image
  Shubham Budhiraja [1] [1] Company Secretary, LLB Final Year,DU & Bcom (H) The land acquisition falls in concurrent list and parliament in year 2013 has introduced a new act which provides for rehabilitation, compensation and procedure on land acquisition of property. The State of T.N has made 3 different state laws w.r.t. land acquisition which was struck off by the High Court. Thereafter, state of TN in year 2019 enacted the same law but with president assent under Article 254 to avoid the repugnancy with 2013 act under Article 254. The appeal filed before apex court w.r.t. repugnancy of 2019 state law with 2013 central law & test of validating the struck off law. The Supreme Court observed as: VALIDATING A LAW WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT Case Law Relevant Remarks National  Agricultural  Cooperative  Marketing  Federation  of India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union o...
Read more

Whether a person can be appointed as an arbitrator if his daughter is married to the son of the eldest brother of one of the parties in the arbitration proceedings?

-
Image
    Shubham Budhiraja [1] Two brothers running a family business in the form of a company and dispute arise between them and both decide to resolve through arbitration. During course of arbitration proceedings, one of party filed Section 14(2) r/w Section 15 Petition filed challenging mandate of arbitrator as being terminated because son of arbitrator is married to daughter of eldest brother of one of party and thus should be disqualified under Section 12(5) being ‘close family relationship’. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court declined the relief and held that neither the Seventh Schedule of the A&C Act nor the IBA Guidelines define the expression ‘close family relationship’. The plain language of Entry no. 9 indicates that it is not the legislative intent to render a distant relative of the parties to be ineligible for being appointed as an arbitrator, if both the parties so agree. It is not sufficient that the arbitrator is related to any one of the parties; the relation...
Read more

Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?

-
Image
  Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?   Under what circumstances, photocopy of agreement to sell can be relied upon as secondary evidence?   Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A filed a suit for possession against B on basis of agreement to sell executed in the year 1989. During the hearing, A filed IA for reading photocopy of agreement to sell as secondary evidence because he is not able to find the original agreement to sell. The Trial Court allowed the IA but in review rejected that because agreement to sell was insufficiently stamped therefore bar of section 35 of stamp act applies. The High Court confirmed the order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that bar of Section 35 will not apply because amendment of 1990 wherein explanation was added to the stamp act was substantive in nature and therefore new obligation of stamping cannot be imposed on agreement of sell executed between A and B. [2] ...
Read more