- (1.) The judgment of the Court was as follows:- All the above mentioned applications have been taken out by respective parties as stated specifically hereinafter for following common reliefs:- (a) THE aforesaid suit being C.S. No. 19 of 2009 be dismissed, (b) Leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent be revoked, (c) Staying of all further proceedings in C.S. No. 19 of 2009 till the disposal of the instant suit. Since these applications are demurer action the same require disposal first before this Court considers the application for interlocutory relief, taken out by the plaintiff being G. A. No. 282 of 2009.
(2.) This application has been taken out by Calcutta Infrastructure Infotech Projects Limited the defendant No. 10 for the above relief on the ground that from perusal of the plaint and relief claimed therein would show that the plaintiff is seeking a decision on right title of immovable property, and control and possession thereof. The plaintiff had at no point of time held any share in the applicant company and the particulars of the shareholders would appear from a schedule which is annexed to the petition being Annexure 'C. As on 11th November, 2004 Arun Kumar Bajoria, since deceased (who has been described hereinafter in short AKB) had no interest in the applicant company nor AKB was a Director at that point of time. Therefore, AKB creating any interest in respect of the Behala property could not and did not arise. The property at Behala admittedly situates outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The documents relied on by the plaintiff are clearly inadmissible in evidence and no right in respect of the said immovable property could be claimed on the basis of that document as the said document is unregistered also. No specific performance of alleged agreement could be granted inasmuch as the dispute relate to immovable property that situates outside the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court. The said suit is frivolous, vexatious, scandalous and is filed in gross abuse of the process of Court inasmuch as the plaintiff had full knowledge of the true facts regarding ownership and possession of the said property at the time of institution of the instant suit. The suit is filed intending to cause unnecessary hardship to the applicant. This application has been taken out for the identical relief as mentioned above by one J.R. Hutchison Limited and Bajoria Finance Private Limited being the defendant Nos. 11 and 12. The plaintiff has sought for several other relief on different causes of action other than recovery of immovable properties for which no leave under Order 2 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been taken. For such reason the plaint is liable to be dismissed being barred by law. In the plaint no case has been made out that the assets and properties of the petitioners herein were owned by late A.K.B. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he is entitled to any share in the properties and assets of the defendant Nos. 11 and 12 or these defendants have ever agreed with the plaintiff to giving any share in their assets and properties. The handwritten statement of AKB on which the plaintiff is strongly relying has not stated to have been made at the instance of the applicants. The claim of the plaint as against the applicants' herein are in respect of properties mentioned in Article 3 under the heading "Real Estate Projects" which are situated admittedly at Kona outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. This Hon'ble Court has been called upon to decide the title in respect of the properties outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and also for delivery of possession of such property which are lying outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Hence this Hon'ble Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit so far as assets and properties of these applicants are concerned. The other grounds for adjudication of plaint are identical as it is made out in the earlier application. This application has been taken out by the defendant Nos. 14 and 15 namely Manish Trex and Finvest Private Limited and Nion Syntex and Finvest Private Limited. In this application identical grounds have been taken as taken in immediately preceding applications. In addition thereto it is alleged that from a bare reading of the plaint it is evident that no cause of action has been disclosed as against these applicants. It is alleged that at no point of time the plaintiff had held any share of the applicants herein. Under such circumstances no cause of action has been disclosed for granting any relief in the nature of a declaration that the plaintiff is a shareholder of the applicants.
(3.) This application has been taken out by the defendant Nos. 13, 16 and 17 namely Gold Mohar Implex Private Limited, Paras Trexim Private Limited and Subodh Credit and Finvest Private Limited. The grounds stated in this application for the relief as aforesaid are identical as those stated in the immediately preceding two applications as such I do not feel the same should be repeated here. This application has been taken out by defendant No. 18 Victoria Glass Works Private Limited and the defendant No. 19 Arun Properties Private Limited. In this application it is stated that the plaintiff's claim of ownership to the extent of 15% in the assets and properties made in the Schedule 'B' of the plaint and of the possession thereof is frivolous. The plaintiff however has not sought for any claim of ownership against any assets or properties of the petitioners herein. The plaintiff has neither contended nor it is his case that he has done any alleged work or rendered any service for petitioners herein. The plaintiff has not made any specific averment in respect of these applicants nor has prayed for any relief as against this petitioners. From bare perusal of the documents relied on by the plaintiff it will be clear that the said alleged documents do not refer to the petitioners herein nor can be made applicable to the petitioners herein. Hence, there has been no disclosure of cause of action against the petitioners. Apart from the aforesaid statement and averment these applicants however have taken the same ground as has been taken by other applicants for obtaining identical relief.;