Dismissed

Bhagyodayam Company Ltd, v. Gilroy Mendez

Kerala HC2 Jun 2022OP(C)/453/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an original petition filed by a company administrator challenging an order holding a tenant's suit for injunction maintainable. The court held Sec.430 of the Companies Act, 2013 did not oust civil court jurisdiction and found no grounds for interference under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

The original petition was held merit-less and dismissed.

Bhagyodayam Company Ltd, Vs Gilroy Mendez — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

OP(C) NO. 453 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN I.A 2 OF 2020 IN OS 450/2019 OF II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

BHAGYODAYAM COMPANY LTD,

¶9

A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING
ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT DOOR NO. 73/3208,
CHATHIYATH, PACHALAM P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682012,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR - JINAN K.R.

¶10

BY ADVS.
PHILIP MATHEW
M.A.SHAJI

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 GILROY MENDEZ S/O. MR. ANTONY MENDEZ, RESIDING AT VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, LOURDES HOSPITAL ROAD, VADUTHALA P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682023.

¶13

2 ANTONY MENDEZ @ SHELTON S/O. MR. FRANCIS MENDEZ, KALANGARA HOUSE, VADUTHALA P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682023.

¶14

3 PAUL JOSEPH S/O. LATE SRI.V.J. JOSEPH, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULLICKAPULLY N.K. SREEDHARAN ROAD, EAST OF KATTUNGAL TEMPLE, PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682012. BY ADV G.RAJAGOPAL

¶15

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(C) No.453 of 2022

C.S DIAS,J.

--------------------------OP(C) No.453 of 2022

¶20

----------------------------Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2022.

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The original petition is filed seeking to set aside the order of the Court of the 2^nd Additional Munsiff, Ernakulam, in I.A No.2/2020 in O.S 450/2019, holding that the suit is maintainable before the said Court.

¶23

The petitioner’s case, in brief, in the memorandum of the original petition is that, the petitioner is a Company. The first respondent has filed the suit, inter-alia, seeking a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the petitioner and its men from causing any obstruction to the first respondent from his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as a tenant of the plaint schedule property. The petitioner is the owner of the property. The property was leased out to the first respondent, styling himself as a trustee of the petitioner company. The court below by Ext P3 had passed an ad-

¶24

¶25

OP(C) No.453 of 2022

¶26

interim order of injunction restraining the petitioner from forcefully evicting the first respondent. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in OP(C) 1323/2019. This Court by Ext P8 judgment directed the court below to consider the maintainability of the suit as a preliminary issue. The court below by Ext P9 order has found the suit to be maintainable. Ext P9 order is erroneous and wrong. Hence, the original petition.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. Service is complete on respondents 2 and 3.

¶28

The first respondent has filed a suit against the petitioner seeking a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner and its men from forcefully evicting the first respondent from the plaint schedule property.

¶29

Sec.430 of the Companies Act, 2013 reads as follows:

¶30

¶31

OP(C) No.453 of 2022

¶32

Sec.430 of the Companies Act, 2013 provides that ‘No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the Tribunal or the appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine by or this Act or any other law for the time being in force and no injunction shall be granted by any court or the authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, by the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal’.

¶33

A reading of the averments in the plaint, establishes that the first respondent has sought to enforce his civil right, and not to adjudicate on any matter falling within the realm of the Companies Act, 2013. Just because the property belongs to the petitioner, which is a Company, the jurisdiction of the civil court will only stand ousted, when the first respondent apprehends that a civil wrong will be committed.

¶34

The learned Munsiff has rightly found that the suit does not fall within the realm of Sec.430 of the Companies Act, 2013. I do not find any illegality, impropriety and irregularity in Ext P9 order, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the

¶35

¶36

OP(C) No.453 of 2022

¶37

supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶38

The original petition is merit-less and is hence

dismissed.

sd/-

Sks/2.6.2022

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

OP(C) No.453 of 2022

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 453/2022

¶46

`PETITION`	`ER EXHI`	`BITS`
`Exhibit`	`P1`	`COPY OF NCLT, KOCHI BENCH ORDER DATED` `01.12.2021 IN TCP NO.21/KOB/2019` `APPOINTING PETITIONER AS ADMINISTRATOR` `OF THE COMPANY.`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`COPY OF NCLT CHENNAI BENCH, ORDER DATED` `28.08.2018 IN CP. NO. 29/201 APPOINTING` `JUSTICE (RETD) MR. K. NARAYANA KURUP AS` `ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COMPANY.`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`COPY OF ORDER BY HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT,` `ERNAKULAM IN DATED 24.12.2014 IN IA NO.` `6145/2014, IN OS NO.6/2015.`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`COPY OF ORDER BY HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT,` `ERNAKULAM DATED 18.06.2015 IN IA` `3928/2015 IN OS. 6/2015.`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`COPY OF ORDER OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER` `DATED 31.10.2018, SUPERSEDING THE BOARD` `IN EXISTENCE TO CARRY THE FUNCTIONS OF` `THE COMPANY UNTIL FURTHER ORDER.`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`COPY OF THE NCLAT ORDER IN CA (AT) NO.` `338 OF 2018 DATED 27.07.2020.`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`COPY OF THE SUPREME COURT ORDER IN CIVIL` `APPEAL NO. 2999 OF 2020 DATED` `19.11.2020.`
`Exhibit`	`P8`	`COPY OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA` `JUDGMENT DATED 12.11.2019 IN OP(C) NO.` `1323/2019.`
`Exhibit`	`P9`	`COPY OF THE ORDER OF II ADDITIONAL` `MUNSIFF'S COURT ERNAKULAM DATED` `16.11.2021 IN I.A NO. 2 OF 2020 IN O.S` `NO. 450 OF 2019.`

¶47

¶48

OP(C) No.453 of 2022

Bhagyodayam Company Ltd, v. Gilroy Mendez

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagyodayam Company Ltd, v. Gilroy Mendez

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Aravindakshan Vs the Kalliyad Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Nishana Sayeem Vs Haris

Dr. Shurafa Shamsudheen Vs Dr. Sayid Rahman

T. Abdul Vahab Vs Iqbal College Trust

Boyce Rubber Estates Private Limited, Vs Kodikuthy Sree Subramanya Swamy Temple

Habeeba Vs Jijin