BLOOM DEKOR LTD. ETC. ETC. versus SUBHASH HIMATLAL DESAI AND ORS. ETC.

BLOOM DEKOR LTD. ETC. ETC. versus SUBHASH HIMATLAL DESAI AND ORS. ETC.

Suits and petitions challenging the public issue and listing of shares filed by respondents were frivolous and vexatious, lacking genuine cause of action and jurisdiction; requisite permissions under Section 73 of Companies Act, 1956 had been obtained from Ahmedabad and Bombay Stock Exchanges; all such suits should...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Bloom Dekor Ltd.; Respondent: Subhash Himatlal Desai; Respondent: Arvind B. Sheth; Respondent: Kirit Tulsirbhai Gadhia; Respondent: Grahak Suraksha Samiti
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 September 1994
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interim Order
Outcome
Appeals disposed of
Legal Topics
Public Issue of Shares, Jurisdiction of Courts, Allotment of Shares, Interim Injunctions, Listing of Shares
Company Law Public Issue of Shares Jurisdiction of Courts Allotment of Shares Interim Injunctions Listing of Shares

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bloom Dekor Ltd.

Appellant

Subhash Himatlal Desai

Respondent

Arvind B. Sheth

Respondent

Kirit Tulsirbhai Gadhia

Respondent

Grahak Suraksha Samiti

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interim Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether multiple suits and petitions filed challenging public issue and listing were frivolous and vexatious
  2. 2 Whether the courts at Morvi, Prantij and Baroda had jurisdiction over the subject matter
  3. 3 Whether the appellant company obtained requisite permissions from stock exchanges under Section 73 of Companies Act, 1956

Ratio Decidendi

Suits and petitions challenging the public issue and listing of shares filed by respondents were frivolous and vexatious, lacking genuine cause of action and jurisdiction; requisite permissions under Section 73 of Companies Act, 1956 had been obtained from Ahmedabad and Bombay Stock Exchanges; all such suits should be transferred to the competent court at Ahmedabad; conduct of respondents in pursuing such litigation is disapproved.

Court Disposition

Appeals disposed of

Orders

  • All suits mentioned in T.P. (C) Nos. 26 to 30 of 1994 transferred to seniormost Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, to be tried with C.S. No. 6630 of 1993.
  • Each contesting respondent ordered to pay Rs. 10,000 to the appellant company as token of disapproval.