Full Text
Translation output
% 20.7.2011
Present: Mr. Neeraj Maihotra and Mr. Shourjyo Mukherjee, Advocates for the petitioner.
+ CM No.13085/2011 (for exemption) in CM(M) No.820/2011
*
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM(M) No.820/2011 & CM No. 13084/2011 (stay)
The order impugned is the order dated 03.03.2011 vide which the application filed by defendant No. 3/Arun Kumar Gupta in Suit No. 412/2009 seeking a stay of the subsequent suit in view of the earlier suit filed by him i.e. suit No. 182/20008 had been granted; accordingly the second suit filed by Geeta Verma against the three defendants (of whom the Arun Kumar Gupta was defendant No. 3) had been stayed.
The record shows that the first suit was a suit filed by Arun
Kumar Gupta against two defendants namely M/s. Unitec Limited and Alankit Assignments Ltd. The prayer was that a decree of permanent• injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and
AW against the defendants restraining them from transferring the shares of M/s. Unitect limited i.e. number 468501-600(100 shares).
It is not in dispute that in that suit pursuant to an application filed by Geeta Verma under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code, she had been impleaded as a party.
The second suit had been filed by the Geeta Verma seeking
2011:DHC:7829 mandatory and permanent injunction; relief sought by the plaintiff was for a prayer of mandatory injunction to be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the first two defendants i.e. M/s. Unitech
Ltd. and Alankit Assignments Ltd. directing them to issue duplicate share in the name of the plaintiff of the aforenoted distinctive numbers.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed that the prayer sought for by the plaintiff/Geeta Verma in the second suit cannot be decreed in the first suit as the prayer in the second suit is that the defendants i.e. M/s. Unitech Ltd. and Alankit
Assignments Ltd. be directed to issue duplicate shares in the name of the plaintiff and this is not envisaged in the first suit.
In this factual scenario, the impugned order is set aside.
Suit No. 182/2008 pending before Civil Judge North, Tis
Hazari and the second Suit No. 412/2009 pending before Civil
Judge (Central)-02 are directed to be consolidated and both the aforenoted suits will be tried by the Civil Judge (North), Tis Hazari.
With these directions this petition is disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 20, 2011 rb
2011:DHC:7829
Present: Mr. Neeraj Maihotra and Mr. Shourjyo Mukherjee, Advocates for the petitioner.
+ CM No.13085/2011 (for exemption) in CM(M) No.820/2011
*
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM(M) No.820/2011 & CM No. 13084/2011 (stay)
The order impugned is the order dated 03.03.2011 vide which the application filed by defendant No. 3/Arun Kumar Gupta in Suit No. 412/2009 seeking a stay of the subsequent suit in view of the earlier suit filed by him i.e. suit No. 182/20008 had been granted; accordingly the second suit filed by Geeta Verma against the three defendants (of whom the Arun Kumar Gupta was defendant No. 3) had been stayed.
The record shows that the first suit was a suit filed by Arun
Kumar Gupta against two defendants namely M/s. Unitec Limited and Alankit Assignments Ltd. The prayer was that a decree of permanent• injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and
AW against the defendants restraining them from transferring the shares of M/s. Unitect limited i.e. number 468501-600(100 shares).
It is not in dispute that in that suit pursuant to an application filed by Geeta Verma under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code, she had been impleaded as a party.
The second suit had been filed by the Geeta Verma seeking
2011:DHC:7829 mandatory and permanent injunction; relief sought by the plaintiff was for a prayer of mandatory injunction to be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the first two defendants i.e. M/s. Unitech
Ltd. and Alankit Assignments Ltd. directing them to issue duplicate share in the name of the plaintiff of the aforenoted distinctive numbers.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed that the prayer sought for by the plaintiff/Geeta Verma in the second suit cannot be decreed in the first suit as the prayer in the second suit is that the defendants i.e. M/s. Unitech Ltd. and Alankit
Assignments Ltd. be directed to issue duplicate shares in the name of the plaintiff and this is not envisaged in the first suit.
In this factual scenario, the impugned order is set aside.
Suit No. 182/2008 pending before Civil Judge North, Tis
Hazari and the second Suit No. 412/2009 pending before Civil
Judge (Central)-02 are directed to be consolidated and both the aforenoted suits will be tried by the Civil Judge (North), Tis Hazari.
With these directions this petition is disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 20, 2011 rb
2011:DHC:7829
JUDGMENT