Vijay Gopal Jindal v. SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited & Anr.

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.

1. This application has been made under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by defendant No.1 for rejection of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has undervalued the suit and had not paid proper court fees.

2. It is submitted that the plaintiff has valued the relief at Rs.20,70,000/- for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction whereas the plaintiff has claimed relief of more than Rs.[5] crores since 5,00,000 units of shares about which the plaintiff has claimed relief were valued under the agreement at Rs.100/- per share and that total value of these shares comes to Rs.[5] crores. The defendant No.1 has relied upon a letter dated 2nd July, 2007 to press this argument where the value of the share is given as Rs.100/- per share.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff was not seeking relief in respect of Rs.[5] crores but the plaintiff was, in fact, asking that the shares actually belonged to the plaintiff and should be transferred in favour of the plaintiff as the value of shares has already been paid by the plaintiff; one per cent by way of cheque and remaining 99 per cent through the commission and profits, to which the plaintiff was entitled to, but was 2009:DHC:5165 C.S. (OS) No.1575/2008 Page No.2 of 2 not received by the plaintiff from the defendants.

4. I consider that the value of the suit has to commensurate with the relief sought by the plaintiff. In this case, the plaintiff has sought a relief of transfer of 5,00,000 shares of the defendants in his name. The value of these 5,00,000 shares, as per the letter attached by the plaintiff, is Rs.[5] crores. The plea of the plaintiff that he has already paid consideration is also not tenable. The plaintiff had paid only Rs.[5] lacs and he has stated that rest of the consideration of shares was adjustable against the commission and profit receivable by him. It is plaintiff’s own case that the defendants’ company did not pay him either the profit or commission nor the defendants’ company paid him salary after the month of May, 2008. Obviously, the suit of the plaintiff is for recovery of his commission, profit and salary. That is why the plaintiff has asked for transfer of 5,00,000 shares in his name presuming that his commission and profit would make up the rest of the consideration for shares. The letter dated 2nd July, 2007 makes it clear that the shares were valued at Rs.100/- per share and balance consideration was either payable by the plaintiff or was to be realized by adjustments against commission and profits, etc., receivable by the plaintiff.

5. Thus, this suit is in fact a suit for recovery of the profits, commissions, etc., by an indirect method of adjustment of this commission and profit against the cost of shares. The relief sought is of more than Rs.[5] crores. The plaintiff is supposed to pay court fees on relief of Rs.4,95,00,000/- which would be the balance value of the shares plus the reliefs in respect of salary, etc. Thus, the value of suit in all would be around Rs.[5] cores and the plaintiff has to pay the court fees on this amount. However, the suit cannot be outrightly rejected for nonpayment of court fees and the plaintiff is to be given a chance to pay the court fees on this amount. The plaintiff is directed to make good the court fees within four weeks. The application stands disposed of.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. DECEMBER 04, 2009 ‘AA’