Vijay Gopal Jindal vs Srei Infrastructure Finance ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 4997 Del

     *                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        I.A. Nos.1151/2009 in C.S. (OS) No.1575 of 2008
%
         VIJAY GOPAL JINDAL                                                  ......Plaintiff
                                         Through: Mr. Pinaki Mishra, Sr. Advocate with
                                                  Mr. K. Datta & Mr. Ashish Verma, Advs.

                                              Versus

         SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED & ANR. ......Defendants
                               Through: Mr. T.K. Ganju, Sr. Advocate with
                                        Ms. Indrani Ghosh & Mr. U. Bhatia, Advs.

                                                       Date of Reserve: 24th November, 2009
                                                           Date of Order: 4th December, 2009

         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.       Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?           Yes.
2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?                                          Yes.
3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?                                  Yes.

ORDER

1. This application has been made under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by defendant No.1 for

rejection of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has undervalued the suit and had not paid

proper court fees.

2. It is submitted that the plaintiff has valued the relief at Rs.20,70,000/- for the purpose

of court fees and jurisdiction whereas the plaintiff has claimed relief of more than Rs.5 crores

since 5,00,000 units of shares about which the plaintiff has claimed relief were valued under

the agreement at Rs.100/- per share and that total value of these shares comes to Rs.5 crores.

The defendant No.1 has relied upon a letter dated 2nd July, 2007 to press this argument where

the value of the share is given as Rs.100/- per share.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff was not seeking

relief in respect of Rs.5 crores but the plaintiff was, in fact, asking that the shares actually

belonged to the plaintiff and should be transferred in favour of the plaintiff as the value of

shares has already been paid by the plaintiff; one per cent by way of cheque and remaining 99

per cent through the commission and profits, to which the plaintiff was entitled to, but was

not received by the plaintiff from the defendants.

4. I consider that the value of the suit has to commensurate with the relief sought by the

plaintiff. In this case, the plaintiff has sought a relief of transfer of 5,00,000 shares of the

defendants in his name. The value of these 5,00,000 shares, as per the letter attached by the

plaintiff, is Rs.5 crores. The plea of the plaintiff that he has already paid consideration is also

not tenable. The plaintiff had paid only Rs.5 lacs and he has stated that rest of the

consideration of shares was adjustable against the commission and profit receivable by him. It

is plaintiff's own case that the defendants' company did not pay him either the profit or

commission nor the defendants' company paid him salary after the month of May, 2008.

Obviously, the suit of the plaintiff is for recovery of his commission, profit and salary. That

is why the plaintiff has asked for transfer of 5,00,000 shares in his name presuming that his

commission and profit would make up the rest of the consideration for shares. The letter

dated 2nd July, 2007 makes it clear that the shares were valued at Rs.100/- per share and

balance consideration was either payable by the plaintiff or was to be realized by adjustments

against commission and profits, etc., receivable by the plaintiff.

5. Thus, this suit is in fact a suit for recovery of the profits, commissions, etc., by an

indirect method of adjustment of this commission and profit against the cost of shares. The

relief sought is of more than Rs.5 crores. The plaintiff is supposed to pay court fees on relief

of Rs.4,95,00,000/- which would be the balance value of the shares plus the reliefs in respect

of salary, etc. Thus, the value of suit in all would be around Rs.5 cores and the plaintiff has

to pay the court fees on this amount. However, the suit cannot be outrightly rejected for non-

payment of court fees and the plaintiff is to be given a chance to pay the court fees on this

amount. The plaintiff is directed to make good the court fees within four weeks.

The application stands disposed of.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.

DECEMBER 04, 2009 'AA'