This oral judgment notes that the writ petition has become an academic question as the parties' dispute appears to have lost significance following the sale of share capital. The writ petition is consequently disposed of as it requires no particular cause to proceed.
Rule discharged; all pending civil applications disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 WP 3237/1994
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3237 of 1994 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3221 of 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8769 of 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8768 of 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3237 of 1994
2 WP 3237/1994
Mr. M.N. Navandar, Advocate for petitioners
Mr. Sanket S. Kulkarni, Advocate, inserted by Mr S.D. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 3
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
th August, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT :
3 WP 3237/1994
jurisdiction of civil court in respect of reliefs claimed by present respondents in respective regular civil suits bearing No. 180 of 1990 and 634 of 1990 which are pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Kopargaon. According to learned counsel for petitioners the matter is wholly covered by provisions under the Companies Act, 1956 and section 10 (2) and from the same it would follow that civil court would have no certain jurisdiction to entertain suits for the reliefs claimed by plaintiffs.
5 Although these are the contentions advanced on behalf of petitioners, it appears that there have been further developments during the pendency of writ petition and the share capital of plaintiffs has been sold out by them entirely and the amount accordingly is stated to have been paid to them by petitioner firm.
4 WP 3237/1994
matter has been rendered only of academic interest. No particular cause of parties is likely to further in the writ petition. Writ petition, as such, is disposed of.
( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH ) JUDGE.
Madkar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether civil court has jurisdiction to try suits for reliefs claimed by plaintiffs.
Whether Companies Act, 1956 s. 10(2) deprives civil court of jurisdiction.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kailas S/o Baburao Jadhav
Balasaheb S/o Baburao Jadhav
Shri Sai Shopping Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
Shivaji S/o Tukaram Kote
Sunil P. Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
