Shri. H.K. Aggarwal vs Shr. P.N. Aggarwal & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4584 Del

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Judgment: 16.09.2011

       CM(M) No.837/2005 & C.M. No. 6677/05 for stay

SHRI. H.K. AGGARWAL                        ...........Petitioner
                   Through:          Mr. Simran Mehta, Advocate

                     Versus

SHR. P.N. AGGARWAL & ORS.                  ..........Respondent
                   Through:          Mr. Alok Kumar and Ms.
                                     Manisha Agrawal Narain,
                                     Advocates for R-1.
                                     Mr. Kishan Rawat, Advocate
                                     for R-2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
        see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                          Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. The order impugned before this court is the order

dated 29.11.2004 vide which application filed by the

plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil

Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') had been

dismissed.

2. The facts as borne out from the record are that the

plaintiff has filed the present suit for mandatory and

permanent injunction; plaintiff is the son of the defendant

No. 1; his relief is against the defendant No. 1 as also

defendant No. 2 which is Motors Industries Company Ltd.

(MICO); contention is that the grand-father of the plaintiff,

namely, Raghubir Saranhad expired on 01.05.1956 his

shares i.e. 2000 B Class shares of defendant No. 2

Company devolved upon the plaintiff and a Succession

Certificate to the said effect had also been obtained by the

plaintiff which is dated 26.11.1956; the details of this

succession had been given to the defendant No. 2 Company

in the correspondence exchanged with the Company which

was as early as 12.04.1957; contention is that the plaintiff

was a minor at that time and all his works were being

performed by his natural guardian i.e. his father who is

now defendant No. 1; the company on this intimation that

these shares had now devolved upon the plaintiff in view of

this succession certificate had however transferred these

shares in the name of defendant No. 1 which was an

illegality committed by the defendant No. 2 Company. The

relief claimed in the present suit is that the aforenoted

shares be transferred in the name of the plaintiff and a

mandatory as also a permanent injunction to the said effect

has been sought.

3. Written statement was filed by the defendant No. 1 as

also by the defendant No. 2; the stand of the defendant No.

1 who is the father of the plaintiff was that the suit is

barred by limitation; these shares had been purchased by

the defendant No. 1 in the year 1958 in his individual

capacity and payment has been made by cheque; payment

had in fact been made in the account of the plaintiff. The

stand of the Company (defendant No. 2) is that although

the succession certificate had admittedly been obtained by

the defendant No. 1 for the interest and benefit of his

minor son; yet defendant No. 2 Company could not transfer

these shares in the name of the plaintiff as he was a minor

and their Articles of Association prohibited such a transfer.

4. The impugned order had noted that the defence set

up by the defendant did not in any manner qualify for an

unequivocal or an unqualified admission which could entitle

the plaintiff for a judgment forthwith. The defence of

limitation had also been set up by the defendant;

contention being that the plaintiff had attained majority on

19.10.1964 and all transaction thereafter were being

carried out by him independently, the question of his not

being aware about the knowhow of these shares was

incorrect; on merits also, contention (as noted supra) was

that these shares had been purchased by defendant No. 1

for which money had already been paid to the plaintiff;

further defence of defendant No. 1 were qua the objections

of pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction of the court to try

this suit; the registered office of defendant No. 2 Company

being in Banglore.

5. A decree under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code can

follow only if there is an unequivocal, clear and

unambiguous admission; which is evident from the

pleadings. There is no doubt that the admission can be read

not only from the pleadings but also from the documents

which are attached thereto; however, perusal of the

pleading as also the documents which have been

highlighted by the plaintiff (in the course of the arguments)

do not make out any such case. Impugned order in no

manner suffers from any infirmity.

Petition is dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

SEPTEMBER 16, 2011 rb