Jayant Gupta vs Hansraj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

3.7.2024 - This Appeal is filed against Order dated 10^th May, 2024 by which an Application bearing IA (CA) No.112 of 2022 filed by the Respondent No.11 and 12 seeking to be impleaded as legal representative of the deceased Shivraj Gupta (Petitioner No.1 in the Company Petition No.118/241-242/(PB)/ 2020) has been allowed. Counsel for the Appellant has argued that the deceased Shri Shivraj Gupta had executed the registered will on 25^th September, 2007 bequeathing the shares in favour of Petitioner No.2 It is submitted that the Appellant earlier filed CA 303 of 2021 for impleading himself as legal representative of deceased Shri Shivraj Gupta on which Order was passed on 22^nd July, 2021 which read as under:-

He has further submitted that both the daughters (Respondents No.11 and 12) had also executed deed of declaration and family settlement as per which the Appellant has become the sole owner of the said shares which have been bequeathed by his late father by virtue of the aforesaid will. Learned Counsel has vehemently argued that all these facts on record before the Tribunal were not considered in the Impugned Order as the impugned Order only talks of an earlier Order passed by the Tribunal on 29^th September, 2022 by which the matter was referred to the Mediator and the daughters were also allowed to participate in the mediation. It is further submitted that in the impugned Order, the Tribunal has only referred to the reasons given in the I.A. which is stated to have been filed by Respondents No.11 and 12 and thereafter the application has been allowed in the interest of justice without making any reference to the stand taken by the Appellant in defence. In response, Counsel for Respondents No.11 and 12 has argued that the will, deed and family settlement set up by the Appellant, have already been challenged by them before the Civil Court, Saket by way of a suit for declaration. However, he has admitted that the inunction prayed for has not been granted. Counsel for the Appellant has also submitted that the Order suffers from non-application of mind and is a non-speaking Order and thus violates the principals of natural justice.

We have heard Counsel for the parties and after examining the record, are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has passed the Order without mentioning a word about the defence taken by the Appellant in the Application. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the Order dated 29^th September, 2022 and the Application which was filed by the Respondents No.11 and 12. In our considered opinion, the Tribunal has not passed a speaking Order because for the purpose of passing the speaking Order, the Tribunal was required to refer to the defence taken by the Appellant as well and then should have come to a conclusion as to whether Respondents No.11 and 12 are entitled to be impleaded as a legal representative of the deceased.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the Impugned Order dated 10^th May, 2024 is set aside. IA (CA) No.112 of 2022 is restored. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal who is seized of the main case to decide this application as early as possible. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 9^th July, 2024. It is also made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case which shall be decided by the Tribunal.