Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1308 (CAL)

Sanjay Kumar Bajoria v. Lata Devi Bajoria

2010-10-06

KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. THE judgment of the Court was as follows:- All the above mentioned applications have been taken out by respective parties as stated specifically hereinafter for following common reliefs:- (a) THE aforesaid suit being C.S. No. 19 of 2009 be dismissed, (b) Leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent be revoked, (c) Staying of all further proceedings in C.S. No. 19 of 2009 till the disposal of the instant suit. Since these applications are demurer action the same require disposal first before this Court considers the application for interlocutory relief, taken out by the plaintiff being G. A. No. 282 of 2009. 2. THIS application has been taken out by Calcutta Infrastructure Infotech Projects Limited the defendant No. 10 for the above relief on the ground that from perusal of the plaint and relief claimed therein would show that the plaintiff is seeking a decision on right title of immovable property, and control and possession thereof. The plaintiff had at no point of time held any share in the applicant company and the particulars of the shareholders would appear from a schedule which is annexed to the petition being Annexure 'C. As on 11th November, 2004 Arun Kumar Bajoria, since deceased (who has been described hereinafter in short AKB) had no interest in the applicant company nor AKB was a Director at that point of time. Therefore, AKB creating any interest in respect of the Behala property could not and did not arise. The property at Behala admittedly situates outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The documents relied on by the plaintiff are clearly inadmissible in evidence and no right in respect of the said immovable property could be claimed on the basis of that document as the said document is unregistered also. No specific performance of alleged agreement could be granted inasmuch as the dispute relate to immovable property that situates outside the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court. The said suit is frivolous, vexatious, scandalous and is filed in gross abuse of the process of Court inasmuch as the plaintiff had full knowledge of the true facts regarding ownership and possession of the said property at the time of institution of the instant suit. The suit is filed intending to cause unnecessary hardship to the applicant. The said suit is frivolous, vexatious, scandalous and is filed in gross abuse of the process of Court inasmuch as the plaintiff had full knowledge of the true facts regarding ownership and possession of the said property at the time of institution of the instant suit. The suit is filed intending to cause unnecessary hardship to the applicant. This application has been taken out for the identical relief as mentioned above by one J.R. Hutchison Limited and Bajoria Finance Private Limited being the defendant Nos. 11 and 12. The plaintiff has sought for several other relief on different causes of action other than recovery of immovable properties for which no leave under Order 2 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been taken. For such reason the plaint is liable to be dismissed being barred by law. In the plaint no case has been made out that the assets and properties of the petitioners herein were owned by late A.K.B. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he is entitled to any share in the properties and assets of the defendant Nos. 11 and 12 or these defendants have ever agreed with the plaintiff to giving any share in their assets and properties. The handwritten statement of AKB on which the plaintiff is strongly relying has not stated to have been made at the instance of the applicants. The claim of the plaint as against the applicants' herein are in respect of properties mentioned in Article 3 under the heading "Real Estate Projects" which are situated admittedly at Kona outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. This Hon'ble Court has been called upon to decide the title in respect of the properties outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and also for delivery of possession of such property which are lying outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Hence this Hon'ble Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit so far as assets and properties of these applicants are concerned. The other grounds for adjudication of plaint are identical as it is made out in the earlier application. 3. THIS application has been taken out by the defendant Nos. 14 and 15 namely Manish Trex and Finvest Private Limited and Nion Syntex and Finvest Private Limited. In this application identical grounds have been taken as taken in immediately preceding applications. The other grounds for adjudication of plaint are identical as it is made out in the earlier application. 3. THIS application has been taken out by the defendant Nos. 14 and 15 namely Manish Trex and Finvest Private Limited and Nion Syntex and Finvest Private Limited. In this application identical grounds have been taken as taken in immediately preceding applications. In addition thereto it is alleged that from a bare reading of the plaint it is evident that no cause of action has been disclosed as against these applicants. It is alleged that at no point of time the plaintiff had held any share of the applicants herein. Under such circumstances no cause of action has been disclosed for granting any relief in the nature of a declaration that the plaintiff is a shareholder of the applicants. 4. THIS application has been taken out by the defendant Nos. 13, 16 and 17 namely Gold Mohar Implex Private Limited, Paras Trexim Private Limited and Subodh Credit and Finvest Private Limited. The grounds stated in this application for the relief as aforesaid are identical as those stated in the immediately preceding two applications as such I do not feel the same should be repeated here. This application has been taken out by defendant No. 18 Victoria Glass Works Private Limited and the defendant No. 19 Arun Properties Private Limited. In this application it is stated that the plaintiff's claim of ownership to the extent of 15% in the assets and properties made in the Schedule 'B' of the plaint and of the possession thereof is frivolous. The plaintiff however has not sought for any claim of ownership against any assets or properties of the petitioners herein. The plaintiff has neither contended nor it is his case that he has done any alleged work or rendered any service for petitioners herein. The plaintiff has not made any specific averment in respect of these applicants nor has prayed for any relief as against this petitioners. From bare perusal of the documents relied on by the plaintiff it will be clear that the said alleged documents do not refer to the petitioners herein nor can be made applicable to the petitioners herein. Hence, there has been no disclosure of cause of action against the petitioners. From bare perusal of the documents relied on by the plaintiff it will be clear that the said alleged documents do not refer to the petitioners herein nor can be made applicable to the petitioners herein. Hence, there has been no disclosure of cause of action against the petitioners. Apart from the aforesaid statement and averment these applicants however have taken the same ground as has been taken by other applicants for obtaining identical relief. 5. THIS application has been taken out by the Hooghly Mills Company Limited and the Hooghly Mills Projects Limited being the defendant Nos. 7 and 8 in the said suit. In this application the applicants have alleged identically and taken similar ground as have been stated in the earlier applications namely non-disclosure of cause of action and the suit being barred under Order 2 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the suit is based on unregistered and unstamped document. The properties of these applicants against which the relief is sought for situate outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court hence, declaration of title of such properties and possession thereof cannot be granted as this Hon'ble Court lacks inherent jurisdiction. 6. MR. Hirak Kumar Mitra, learned Senior Advocate and MR. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, learned Senior Advocate and other learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the respective clients in support of these applications, contend that there is no disclosure of causes of action as against these applicants though reliefs are claimed against these applicants. Going by the statement and averment made in the plaint the cause of action has been disclosed as against late Arun Kumar Bajoria who has been described to be the real owner of all the companies and the other companies. Other Directors of these companies are really the name lender. Therefore, the suit is hit by the Prohibition of Benami Transaction Act. That apart the agreement as shown in a written piece of paper is unstamped and unregistered though the same intends to create right, title and interest of the immovable properties. In view of the said document being unstamped and unregistered the plaint is liable to be rejected. Moreover, such an agreement as alleged in the plaint and recorded in the document also lacks consideration as such it is void under Section 23 of the Contract Act. Mr. In view of the said document being unstamped and unregistered the plaint is liable to be rejected. Moreover, such an agreement as alleged in the plaint and recorded in the document also lacks consideration as such it is void under Section 23 of the Contract Act. Mr. Jayanta Mitra submits in particular that admittedly the properties of all these companies situate outside the territorial limit of this Court and declaration of title as well as decree for recovery of possession of the said properties have been asked for. Even relief for management of immovable properties is also claimed. Hence the suit as against these defendants is essentially a suit for land. This Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit as against these defendants. Both Mr. Hirak Mitra and Mr. J.K. Mitra seek in support of their submission to rely on following decisions:- (i) AIR 1966 SC 1800, (ii) AIR 1983 Cal 42, (iii) AIR 2000 Bomb 34 and, (iv) 1964 (1) All ER 630. 7. MR. Kapur learned Senior Advocate while appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits that the Court should read and examine the plaint and plaint alone and accompanying documents in order to see whether there is disclosure of cause of action or not or for that matter whether the suit is barred within the meaning of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. HE submits that if the plaint is read carefully it will appear that there has been a joint venture agreement between AKB and the plaintiff and in that joint venture agreement which has been recorded in the document annexed to the plaint, plaintiff is entitled to get 15% shareholder and/or owner of all the companies which were really owned by the said AKB. It is not a suit for land in real sense but for enforcement of right arising out of the said joint venture agreement. If the properties incidentally form part of the assets of joint venture firm or partnership business, any claim in connection with joint venture and firm cannot be said to be claim concerning immovable properties. Consequently, this suit cannot be treated as suit for land. If the properties incidentally form part of the assets of joint venture firm or partnership business, any claim in connection with joint venture and firm cannot be said to be claim concerning immovable properties. Consequently, this suit cannot be treated as suit for land. In support of his submission he has relied on the following decisions: 2004 (3) SCC 137 , 2008 (12) SCC 661 , 2009 (1) SCC 589 , 1995 (1) SCC 478 , 2005 (6) SCC 188 , 2005 (7) SCC 510 , AIR 1989 Cal 254 , AIR 1999 Cal 123 and AIR 1993 Cal 70 . I have heard the learned Counsels and have considered the respective argument advanced by them. In action of this nature the duty of the Court is to read and examine the plaint and on reading thereof if the Court finds any of the grounds mentioned in Order 7 Rule 11 is satisfied and further the suit appears to be vexatious and harrasive the Court can pass order rejecting the plaint as a whole or part dissecting the plaint. 9. WHILE doing so the Court is to read the statement and averment which purport to constitute cause of action and as well as the relief claimed in connection therewith. On careful reading of the plaint I find sum and substance of the allegation made out therein as follows:- (a) The said AKB after death of his father sometimes in 1985 started running only company namely the Hooghly Mills Company Limited, defendant No.7 herein. He was having exclusive management control over the administration and the business affairs of the said company. Actually the said company for all practical purposes was treated to be sole proprietorship business of AKB. Thereafter, the said AKB enlarged and developed his commercial ventures to a great extent and in this process he set up various group of companies and thereby he was able to build an industrial empire. 10. IN course of time he was able to promote and/or set up defendant Nos.7 to 19. All the Directors, Officers and Shareholders of these companies are members of the family of said AKB who was defacto owner of all these companies. It is alleged that said late AKB was the agent of all the companies. 10. IN course of time he was able to promote and/or set up defendant Nos.7 to 19. All the Directors, Officers and Shareholders of these companies are members of the family of said AKB who was defacto owner of all these companies. It is alleged that said late AKB was the agent of all the companies. From 1991 onwards said AKB and his companies faced serious problems arising out of the investigation, enquiries conducted by the Provident Fund Authority, Foreign Exchange Authority and other statutory bodies and there was large number of litigations. As such, it was impossible for late Arun to manage and control of all this problems single handedly, so he needed a helping hand. The plaintiff happens to be a first cousin of AKB and as such in the month of January 1999 AKB invited the plaintiff to enter into and execute joint venture with him for promotion, development and establishment of different industrial and commercial enterprises and also to help and assist him to deal with the various business problem which he was then facing including litigation aforementioned. 11. IN January 1999 the agreement was entered into by the plaintiff on the one hand and the AKB on the other hand, representing himself and the members of his family including the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and all companies and undertakings then comprise of the Hooghly Mills Limited and other companies being the defendant Nos. 7 to 9 abovenamed on various terms and conditions which include development and expansion of the business. It was specifically agreed that 85% of the asset and actual profit of all the aforesaid group of companies belonging to AKB would be retained by him and 15% was to be allotted to the plaintiff. Therefore, the said agreement constituting partnership and/or joint venture was not only binding upon the plaintiff and AKB but also all the defendants herein. 12. IN pursuance of the said agreement the plaintiff performed everything for development, promotion and setting up of industry and lawfully carried on joint venture business and, from time to time payment was received by him. On 28th March, 2008 AKB died when the said terms of the agreement was being implemented on day to day basis. After his death the defendant Nos. On 28th March, 2008 AKB died when the said terms of the agreement was being implemented on day to day basis. After his death the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and each of them committed breach of the said agreement although the plaintiff continued to perform everything in terms of the joint venture agreement. The said defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and various other members and the respective members of the family wrongfully and illegally repudiated and resiled from the said agreement entered into between the plaintiff and AKB. In spite of repeated demands, request and negotiation the said defendants and each of them failed and neglected to resolve the dispute. On the other hand the defendant No. 1, herself, and on behalf of the other defendants and other members of the family and relative and as also such other officer and employee of the defendant companies and some outsiders made it clear that they have no intention whatsoever to carry on business in terms joint venture of the agreement and further refused to implement or give effect to the terms of the said agreement. Thus all the defendants have thereby committed breach of the same. 13. Thus all the defendants have thereby committed breach of the same. 13. IN the background of the aforesaid statement and averment the following reliefs are claimed:- "(a) A Declaration that the plaintiff is the 15 per cent owner and/or shareholder in the assets and properties more fully described in the schedule hereto annexed and marked "B"; (b) A Declaration that the plaintiff as such owner and shareholder is entitled to 15 per cent of the value of the said assets and properties as also of the actual profits and/or revenue generated and earned from business operations carried on by the same or development of the properties or any of them; (c) A decree in favour of the plaintiff for possession of each of the assets and properties mentioned in Schedule "B" hereto annexed against the defendants and each of them; (d) A mandatory injunction against each of the defendants jointly and severally as well as their officers, directors, servants, agents, employees, staff, workers, and their other concerned personnel and assigns and all of them ordering and directing them to allow free, unhindered, unobstructed and unrestricted access to as well as possession of the plaintiff of the properties and assets and more fully mentioned in Schedule "B" hereto; (e) A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and each of them by themselves or their officers, directors, servants, agents, employees, staff, workers, their other concerned personnel and assigns or otherwise howsoever from interfering with or obstructing or preventing or restricting the plaintiff in any manner howsoever from his possession enjoyment and control of and over the assets and properties mentioned in Schedule "B" hereto; (f) A mandatory injunction directing the defendants jointly or severally as well as their officers, directors, servants, agents, employees, staff, workers, and their other concerned personnel and assigns and all of them to forthwith allow the plaintiff to participate in the management, control and administration of the businesses, assets and properties more fully described in Schedule "B" hereto annexed; (g) If necessary, a decree for dissolution and/or winding up of the joint ventures between the parties hereto more fully mentioned in Schedule "B" hereto annexed and settlement of the plaintiff's account in the same on the basis of his share therein in such manner as to this Hon'ble Court may seem fit and proper; (h) If necessary, a decree directing accounts to be taken of the value of the assets and properties of the joint ventures more fully mentioned in Schedule "B" hereto annexed as also of the actual profits and income and revenue earned by such businesses, properties and projects up to date and/or till such further date as to this Hon'ble Court may seem fit and proper; and a decree against the defendants and each of them jointly and severally for such sum as may be found due and payable to the plaintiffs upon the taking of such accounts; (i) A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and each of them jointly or severally by themselves or by their officers, or directors, or servants, or agents, or employees, or representatives or assigns or otherwise howsoever from in any manner dealing with, or disposing of, or alienating or encumbering or mortgaging or selling or transferring or parting with the possession of any of the joint venture assets and properties and businesses and real estate developments or any part thereof as detailed in Schedule "B" annexed hereto; (j) A decree for the sum of Rs.1,61,00,69,625/- as more fully mentioned in Paragraph 56 hereof; alternatively for such sum as the value of the plaintiff's share in the assets, properties and actual profits and incentives mentioned in Schedule "B" hereto annexed on such terms and on such basis as to this Hon'ble Court may seem fit and proper; (k) INterest on all sums found due and owing to the plaintiff at the rate of 9 per cent per annum or calculated at such rate as to this Hon'ble Court may seem fit and proper on enquiry; (I) For the purposes aforesaid all necessary accounts, enquiries and directions; (m) Receiver; (n) INjunction; (o) Attachment; (p) Costs; (q) Further and other reliefs." 14. I find as rightly contended by Mr. Hirak Mitra and Mr. Jayanta Mitra that no allegation has been made as against these companies namely defendant Nos. 7 to 19 to obtain reliefs against them. Any relief claimed without any allegation is claimed without any cause of action and it is legally impossible for the Court to grant relief. It is settled law these companies whosoever is (are) instrumental for their floating and promoting are separate legal entity. It may so happen that AKB might have been one of founder promoter or might have held controlling block of shares of the defendant No. 7 and through it rest of the companies were floated. Shareholder of a company cannot be called to be the owner of the company is the settled law. He/she is entitled to participate in the profit and loss in the business of the companies so long the company is not wound up. In this connection decision of the Supreme Court in case of Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar, Bombay v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay, reported in AIR 1955 SC 74 may be referred as appropriately cited by Mr. S.N. Mukherjee. In Paragraph 7 of the report it is laid down what I have observed. 15. AGREEMENT allegedly entered into for transfer, allotting any portion of the assets or concerning functioning of the companies, by late AKB in favour of the plaintiff is legally unacceptable. Hence alleged claim as against the defendant Nos. 7 to 19 as made out in the prayer portion of the plaint has no foundation. Consequently, there is non-disclosure of cause of action. 16. WHILE applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the catena of decisions cited at the Bar I find substance in the argument of Mr. Hirak Mitra, Mr. Jayanta Mitra that no cause of action has been disclosed as against the company defendants. While reading the document annexed to the plaint it does not appear at all that the companies are signatories to the document. 17. IT is inconceivable under the law leaving aside Board of Director, plaintiff being a stranger can be allowed to manage, control and to take possession of the properties of all these companies namely defendant Nos. 7 to 19. 17. IT is inconceivable under the law leaving aside Board of Director, plaintiff being a stranger can be allowed to manage, control and to take possession of the properties of all these companies namely defendant Nos. 7 to 19. As I have already held the reliefs claimed as against these defendants has no foundation in law nor any cause of action having been disclosed in the plaint as against these defendants, the plaint is iiable to be rejected and/or be taken off the file as against these defendants. 18. NOW remaining question needs to be answered, is whether this suit can be maintained against the defendant Nos.1 to 6 who are admittedly heirs and heiresses and legal representatives of the said AKB. I think it apposite to consider the legal position explained in various decisions of the Supreme Court and also this Court. Supreme Court in the case of Kamala and Ors. v. K. T. Eshwara Sa and Ors., reported in 2008 (12) SCC 661 held as a proposition of law in Paragraph 21 as follows:- "Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code has limited application. It must be shown that the suit is barred under any law. Such a conclusion must be drawn from the averments made in the plaint. Different clauses in Order 7 Rule 11, in our opinion, should not be mixed up. Whereas in a given case, an application for rejection of the plaint may be filed on more than one ground specified in various sub-clauses thereof, a clear finding to that effect must be arrived at. What would be relevant for invoking clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code are the averments made in the plaint." 19. IN the case of Ganpati R.V. Talleres Alegria Track Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of INdia and Anr., reported in 2009 (1) SCC 589 reiterated in Paragraph 24 amongst other that:- "The expression 'joint venture' is more frequently used in the United States. It connotes a legal entity in the nature of a partnership engaged in the joint undertaking of a particular transaction for mutual profit or an association of persons or companies jointly undertaking some commercial enterprise wherein all contribute assets and share risks. It connotes a legal entity in the nature of a partnership engaged in the joint undertaking of a particular transaction for mutual profit or an association of persons or companies jointly undertaking some commercial enterprise wherein all contribute assets and share risks. It requires a community of interest in the performance of the subject-matter, a right to direct and govern the policy in connection therewith, and duty, which may be altered by agreement, to share both in profit and losses. According to Words and Phrases, Permanent Edn., a joint venture is an association of two or more persons to carry out a singly business enterprise for profit. A joint venture can take the form of a corporation wherein two or more persons or companies may join together. A joint venture corporation has been defined as a corporation which has joined with other individuals or corporations within the corporate framework in some specific undertaking commonly found in oil, chemicals, electronic, atomic fields. Joint venture companies are now being increasingly formed in relation to projects requiring inflow of foreign capital or technical expertise in the fast developing countries in East Asia viz. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China, etc. There has been similar growth of joint ventures in our country wherein foreign companies join with INdia counterparts and contribute towards capital and technical know-how for the success of the venture." 20. THE Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tilakram Ghosh and Ors. v. Smt. Gita Rani Sadhukhan and Ors., reported in AIR 1989 Cal. 254 following the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1966 SC 1300 (Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa) has held in Paragraph 19 amongst other that:- "A suit for dissolution of Partnership and account cannot be treated as a suit for land even if its assets consist of immovable properties. This Court has jurisdiction to declare the consent decree null and void and dissolve the firm as prayed for as this purported decree was passed by this Court." Subsequently, another Division of this Court in the case of Md. Hassen Hashmi v. Smt. Kaberi Roy and Ors., reported in AIR 1993 Cal. 70 in Paragraph 19 came to the same legal proposition. Hassen Hashmi v. Smt. Kaberi Roy and Ors., reported in AIR 1993 Cal. 70 in Paragraph 19 came to the same legal proposition. It was held by Their Lordships as follows:- "So far as the instant suit is concerned, it is primarily a suit for accounts and for realisation of movable properties, namely, the interest of the plaintiff in the partnership assets, which is in the nature of movable assets. It does not really matter if the partnership has immovable properties, whether within or outside the jurisdiction of this Court. So far as the interest of the partner is concerned, it is in the nature of movable property." 21. AT this stage going by the statement and averment made in the plaint I prepare to accept the legal argument of Mr. Kapur that fundamentally there is no distinction between the suit filed by one partner against another or other partner(s) in an unregistered partnership firm and one filed by one of the parties to the joint venture against another or the party(ies). In both the cases what the parties claim is the share, interest in the firm or joint venture, not the interest of any specific property of the firm or joint venture. Thus, the interest of one of the parties in joint venture is in the same footing as in the case of partnership. Accordingly, location of properties of the joint venture is not determinative factor for the purpose of jurisdiction. Hence in this action brought against defendant Nos. 1 to 6 going by the statement and averment of the plaint, legal concept of suit for land in view of decisions of this Court as quoted above does not apply. Consequently, plain cannot be rejected as against these defendants when the Court finds that debatable or arguable case has been made out. 22. I, therefore, find the suit can be maintained as against the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 based on the allegation of execution of joint venture agreement. While applying the ratio of principle discussed above and reading allegation of the plaint it cannot be suit for land altogether so far as the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 are concerned rather claim arising out of joint venture agreement to which the said AKB and plaintiff were parties. While applying the ratio of principle discussed above and reading allegation of the plaint it cannot be suit for land altogether so far as the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 are concerned rather claim arising out of joint venture agreement to which the said AKB and plaintiff were parties. Taking face value of the statement and averment of the plaint it can be concluded that the said AKB represented the defendant Nos. 1 to 6. At the most 15% of dividend generated from shareholding of the said AKB could be claimed by the plaintiff in relation to the Companies defendants if at all established at the time of trial of the suits. I fail to comprehend how this suit could be barred under Order II Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure as urged by Mr. H.K.Mitra, Mr. J.K. Mitra and Mr. S.N. Mukherjee. From the language of Order II Rule 4 of Code which is reproduced hereunder, it will be clearly established that the same would be applicable where there is no dispute as to legal right, title, interest in the immovable property unlike the case on hand: "Order II Rule 4-Only certain claims to be joined for recovery of immovable property. No cause of action shall, unless with the leave of the Court, be joined with a suit for the recovery of immovable property, except:- (a) claims for mesne profits or arrear of rent in respect of the property claimed or any part thereof; (b) claims for damages for breach of any contract under which the property or any part thereof is held; and (c) claims in which the relief sought is based on the same cause of action: Provided that nothing in this rule shall be deemed to prevent any party in a suit for foreclosure or redemption from asking to be put into possession of the mortgaged property." Hence the decisions cited in support of above plea are not required to be considered at all. 23. AS a result instead of rejecting the plaint as a whole I dispose of this application striking off the defendant Nos. 7 to 19 from array of the defendants and in view of the striking off no relief can be granted at the time of final hearing of the suit in relation to the management, assets and properties of the said companies. 7 to 19 from array of the defendants and in view of the striking off no relief can be granted at the time of final hearing of the suit in relation to the management, assets and properties of the said companies. In view of this order the plaintiff shall take steps for amendment of the plaint suitably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of xerox signed copy of this order. If no step is taken for amendment of the plaint within the time as above, the plaint will stand rejected wholly as the existing reliefs do not correlate to the cause of action disclosed against the defendant Nos. 1 to 6. Thus no relief can be granted in the application being G.A. No.282 of 2009 made by the plaintiff by reason of the above order passed on the applications of the defendants aforesaid and the same is hereby dismissed, interim order if any stands vacated. However liberty is given to take out fresh one after the plaint is amended in terms of the order as aforesaid.