Dismissed

Smt Shehlata Jain through Lrs v. M/S Bajaj Tempo Ltd. and Others

Rajasthan HC18 Nov 2022CSA/545/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an S.B. Civil Second Appeal concerning a Civil Suit for declaration and mandatory injunction regarding share transfer disputes, the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to pursue the matter since 2012, lacking interest in merits.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed; stay application and other pending applications are disposed of.

Smt Shehlata Jain through Lrs Vs M/S Bajaj Tempo… — Company and Corporate | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 545/2011

¶3

Smt Snehlata Jain Since Deceased W/o Late Sh. Ghanshyam Lal Chaudhari., R/o S-4/a Kabir Marg.

¶4

1/1. Sole Survivior L.R. Kamlesh Jain S/o Late Sh. Ghanhyam Lal Chaudhari Bani Park Jaipur 302016.

¶5

----Appellant-Plaintiffs

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Bajaj Tempo Ltd Through Its Secretary/ Director

¶8

M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd Through Its Secretary/ Director, Regd. Address Of Both Akrudi, Pune Mumabi Road, Pune Maharashtra.

¶9

M/s Bhupendra Meghji Bheda Through Parner Bhupendra Bheda, Office 511, Stock Exchange Tower Dalal Street, Fort, Mumbai.

¶10

----Respondent-Defendant

¶11

For Appellant(s) : None present For Respondent(s) :

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶13

Order

¶14

18/11/2022

¶15

Appellant-plaintiff has filed this second appeal under Section 100 CPC assailing the judgment and decree dated 22.05.2010 passed by Additional District Judge (F.T.) Court No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur in first appeal No.6/2008 affirming the judgment and decree dated 08.07.1999 passed in civil suit No.91/1995 by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Court No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby and whereunder the civil suit for declaration and mandatory injunction was dismissed by the trial court for want of jurisdiction.

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CSA-545/2011]

¶18

It appears from the record that the civil suit was instituted way back in the year 1999 in respect of dispute with regard to the transfer of shares.

¶19

The civil court has observed that such nature of dispute is amenable before the Company Board and jurisdiction of civil court is barred.

¶20

This second appeal was filed way back on 20.08.2010 and perusal of previous order-sheets goes to show that the appeal has not been pursued since 18.05.2012. It appears that the appellantplaintiff has lost interest in pursuing the second appeal on merits.

¶21

Having considered the nature of dispute and the impugned orders as also the conduct of appellant, this court is not inclined to entertain this second appeal, hence the same is hereby dismissed. 6. Stay application and any other pending application, if any, stand disposed of.

¶22

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶23

TN/86

Smt Shehlata Jain through Lrs v. M/S Bajaj Tempo Ltd. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shehlata Jain through Lrs v. M/S Bajaj Tempo Ltd. and Others

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

Mohan Lal Vs Bodu Ram

State of Rajasthan Vs Lala Munni Lal Charitable Trust

Mahavir Singh and Another Vs U O I through N/C Railway Allahabad and or

Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.Andors Vs Smt Sohani and Ors.

Sita Ram Vs Pannaram Thr Lr and Ors.

Rajpaal Singh Vs Smt Vimlesh and Ors.