CM(M) No. 837/2005 Page 1 of 5 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment: 16.09.2011 CM(M) No.837/2005 & C.M. No. 6677/05 for stay SHRI. H.K. AGGARWAL ………..Petitioner Through: Mr. Simran Mehta, Advocate Versus SHR. P.N. AGGARWAL & ORS. ……….Respondent Through: Mr. Alok Kumar and Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Kishan Rawat, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral) 1. The order impugned before this court is the order dated 29.11.2004 vide which application filed by the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) had been dismissed. 2. The facts as borne out from the record are that the CM(M) No. 837/2005 Page 2 of 5 plaintiff has filed the present suit for mandatory and permanent injunction; plaintiff is the son of the defendant No. 1; his relief is against the defendant No. 1 as also defendant No. 2 which is Motors Industries Company Ltd. (MICO); contention is that the grand-father of the plaintiff, namely, Raghubir Saranhad expired on 01.05.1956 his shares i.e. 2000 B Class shares of defendant No. 2 Company devolved upon the plaintiff and a Succession Certificate to the said effect had also been obtained by the plaintiff which is dated 26.11.1956; the details of this succession had been given to the defendant No. 2 Company in the correspondence exchanged with the Company which was as early as 12.04.1957; contention is that the plaintiff was a minor at that time and all his works were being performed by his natural guardian i.e. his father who is now defendant No. 1; the company on this intimation that these shares had now devolved upon the plaintiff in view of this succession certificate had however transferred these shares in the name of defendant No. 1 which was an illegality committed by the defendant No. 2 Company. The CM(M) No. 837/2005 Page 3 of 5 relief claimed in the present suit is that the aforenoted shares be transferred in the name of the plaintiff and a mandatory as also a permanent injunction to the said effect has been sought. 3. Written statement was filed by the defendant No. 1 as also by the defendant No. 2; the stand of the defendant No. 1 who is the father of the plaintiff was that the suit is barred by limitation; these shares had been purchased by the defendant No. 1 in the year 1958 in his individual capacity and payment has been made by cheque; payment had in fact been made in the account of the plaintiff. The stand of the Company (defendant No. 2) is that although the succession certificate had admittedly been obtained by the defendant No. 1 for the interest and benefit of his minor son; yet defendant No. 2 Company could not transfer these shares in the name of the plaintiff as he was a minor and their Articles of Association prohibited such a transfer. 4. The impugned order had noted that the defence set up by the defendant did not in any manner qualify for an unequivocal or an unqualified admission which could entitle CM(M) No. 837/2005 Page 4 of 5 the plaintiff for a judgment forthwith. The defence of limitation had also been set up by the defendant; contention being that the plaintiff had attained majority on 19.10.1964 and all transaction thereafter were being carried out by him independently, the question of his not being aware about the knowhow of these shares was incorrect; on merits also, contention (as noted supra) was that these shares had been purchased by defendant No. 1 for which money had already been paid to the plaintiff; further defence of defendant No. 1 were qua the objections of pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction of the court to try this suit; the registered office of defendant No. 2 Company being in Banglore. 5. A decree under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code can follow only if there is an unequivocal, clear and unambiguous admission; which is evident from the pleadings. There is no doubt that the admission can be read not only from the pleadings but also from the documents which are attached thereto; however, perusal of the pleading as also the documents which have been CM(M) No. 837/2005 Page 5 of 5 highlighted by the plaintiff (in the course of the arguments) do not make out any such case. Impugned order in no manner suffers from any infirmity. Petition is dismissed. INDERMEET KAUR, J. SEPTEMBER 16, 2011 rb