Disposed

Emmadi Baskar Reddy, v. Karvy Computershare Private Limited

Telangana HC3 Mar 2014CMA/1025/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an injunction restraining share transfer. The court upheld the injunction given a prima facie case of fraud and a pending criminal case. However, it directed the trial court to frame an issue and determine if the plaintiff company was properly represented before proceeding.

What did the court decide?

Directed the lower court to frame an issue regarding the representative's authorization, record a finding, and dispose of the main suit within six months. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal disposed of.

Emmadi Baskar Reddy, Vs Karvy Computershare Private… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶3

C.M.A.No.1025 OF 2013

¶4

Dated: 03.03.2014

¶5

Between: Emmadi Baskar Reddy .. Appellant And Karvy Computer share Private Limited and 3 others

¶6

.. Respondents

¶7

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶8

C.M.A.No.1025 OF 2013

¶9

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini)

¶10

This appeal is preferred under Order XLIII Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. against an order of injunction passed by the Court below restraining the appellant/defendant No.3 in O.S.No.167 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989-cum-Additioinal District & Sessions Judge at L.B. Nagar, Rangareddy District from transferring the shares lying in the account of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 Banks to any third parties till the disposal of the suit.

¶11

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff.

¶12

Having carefully gone through the material available on record, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the Court below that a prima facie case is made out to establish that a fraud has taken place while transferring the shares in favour of the appellant and others. It is also not disputed before us that C.C.No.2759 of 2012 on the file of the

¶13

Court of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad is pending against the transferors of the appellant herein. Under the circumstances, the Court below was justified in granting the temporary injunction as prayed for.

¶14

However, it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the main suit itself is not maintainable since the Vice-President of the plaintiff company through whom the suit is filed is

¶15

not duly authorized to file a suit or petition on behalf of the plaintiff company.

¶16

According to us, the said objection requires consideration after the evidence is adduced by both the parties. Hence we deem it appropriate to direct the Court below to frame a specific issue with regard to the objection raised by the appellant that the suit itself is not maintainable on the ground that there was no specific delegation of powers to the person who is representing the plaintiff company and to record a finding thereon.

¶17

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall also be a direction to the Court below to dispose of the main suit following due process of law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶18

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶19

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand closed.

¶20

______________ G.ROHINI, J

¶21

_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J

¶22

Date: 03.03.2014 Ivd

Emmadi Baskar Reddy, v. Karvy Computershare Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Emmadi Baskar Reddy, v. Karvy Computershare Private Limited

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

M/s Varuna Investments, Vs M/s. Asian Infrastructure pte, Limited

Union of India Vs K.Saroja

Yelavarthy Veera Venkata Satyanaryana Vs The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India

Chellingi Gowri Srinivasa prasad, Vs M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Ravulapalem

M/s H.P. Sharma Processors Vs Kailash Chandra Gaur

Konaseema Gas Power Ltd. Vs Union of India