VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2020 › High Court of Delhi

Shri Ajit Kumar Mittal & Anr v. Ms. Rekha Garg & Ors

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
5 March 2020
Bench
Rajiv Sahai Endlawauthor
Case no.
CS(COMM) 89/2020

Judgment

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J MARCH 05, 2020 'pp'..

Case details

Parties and counsel

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 5th March, 2020. + CS(COMM) 89/2020 & IAs No.2627/2020 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC), 2628/2020 (for exemption), 2629/2020 (u/S 80(2) CPC) & 2630/2020 (for condonation of 4 days delay in re-filing) AJIT KUMAR MITTAL & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Meena C. Sharma and Mr. Amit Gupta, Advs. Versus REKHA GARG & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. The two plaintiffs namely (i) Ajit Kumar Mittal; and, (ii) Flowmech Engineers Private Limited have instituted this suit impleading, (i) Rekha Garg; (ii) Mahesh Garg; (iii) Yogesh Aggarwal; (iv) Amar Aggarwal; (v) Sudhir Aggarwal; (vi) Hari Om Prasad Sharma; (vii) Bhero Baba Info Solutions LLP; (viii) Chakradev Devcon Private Limited; and, (ix) The Sub- Registrar-IIA, District West, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, as defendants, for:- (i) declaration cancelling Sale Deed dated 13th January, 2017 of land measuring 4 bighas 8 biswas in Khasra No.67//22/1/1 min. (1-08) and 67//19/2 min. (2-00) and Khasra No.67//22/1/2 (0- 17) and 111//22/2 min. (0-03), situated in the revenue records of Village Mundka, Delhi and to the effect that the defendants no.1 to 7 have no right, title or interest in the said land and all subsequent mutations, sale deeds of the said land are unauthorised, null, void and ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiffs; (ii) possession of the land aforesaid; (iii) declaration that the entire sale consideration of Rs.58,50,000/- for purchase of the land having been paid by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs alone are the owners of the said land; (iv) mandatory injunction directing the defendant no.9 to correct entries in its records; and, (v) permanent injunction restraining the defendants from claiming any rights in the land aforesaid and/or from dealing with the same. 2. On a reading of the plaint, it was felt that the suit is not maintainable. The suit came up first before the Court on 25th February, 2020, when on the ground of non-availability of Ms. Meena Chaudhary Sharma, Advocate for the plaintiffs, adjournment was sought and the suit adjourned to today. Today the senior counsel for the plaintiffs has been heard on admission. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs in the plaint, that (i) the plaintiff no.1 was a director and shareholder of SAS Info Solutions Private Limited (SAS) which has been illegally converted into defendant no.7 Bhero Baba Info Solutions LLP (BBISLLP) by defendants no.1 to 6; (ii) the basic asset of SAS, of which Sunil Jain was one of the directors, was the land aforesaid at Village Mundka; Sunil Jain was interested in selling the said land; (iii) the plaintiff no.1 approached Sunil Jain for purchase of the land aforesaid, value whereof was assessed at Rs.52,00,000/- in the year 2011; (iv) the plaintiffs talked about the same with the defendant no.2, an acquaintance of the plaintiffs, who suggested that instead of purchasing the land in the name of the plaintiff no.1, the land be purchased in the name of a company, to enable use thereof for commercial purposes; (v) Sunil Jain offered to the plaintiff no.1, the entire shareholding of SAS, and it was finalised that the plaintiffs will purchase the entire shareholding of SAS and thereby also acquire title to the land aforesaid; (vi) the defendant no.2 induced the plaintiff no.1 to appoint his wife, defendant no.1 as director of SAS; the defendant no.2 also requested the plaintiff no.1 that although the total capital had been invested by the plaintiffs but the share distribution could be done later on as defendant no.1 was to be projected as Woman Entrepreneur before the Railway Department, to seek tender of solar project from the Indian Railways with whom the defendant no.2 was employed at a senior position; (vii) the plaintiffs paid the entire amount of Rs.58.50 lakhs for acquiring 100% shareholding of SAS and the erstwhile directors of SAS handed over physical possessi

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.