INFRABIZ HOLDINGS SA vs PARESH K.MEHTA (Died)
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRP.Nos.4608 & 4610 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition Nos.4608 & 4610 of 2024
CMP.Nos.25776, 25777, 25787 & 25788 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA011982492024} &
CNR:{HCMA011982482024}
Infrabiz Holdings SA
Having office at
Flat 2904 D, 2904 E, 2904 F,
3000 R, 3000 F, Sea View Wing,
Legend Building 220 Walkeshwar Road,
Mumbai. Rep.by its Authorised Signatory
Mr.Rajiv P.Mehta, A Belgian National,
residing at B-2901, the Legend Cooperative
Housing Society Ltd. Walkeshwar Mumbai &
having registered office at 9b, bd Prince Henri,
L-1724 Luxembourg
...Petitioner in
CRP.No.4608 of 2024
Pankaj K Mehta
S/o. Kirtilal Kalidas Mehta,
Residing at Flat 2904 D, 2904 E,
2904 F, 3000 R,3000 F
Sea View Wing, Legend Building 220,
__________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:54 pm )
CRP.Nos.4608 & 4610 of 2024
Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai,
Maharashtra-400 006, rep.by
his Power agent Digant Bhatt,
S/o. Kritilal Kalidas Mehta,
a Belgium National, Residing at
A/301, Jyoti Plza, S.V Road,
Kandivili West, Mumbai-400 067,
Presently residing at
Beukenlaan, 70 2020,
Antwerp, Belgium
...Petitioner in
CRP.No.4610 of 2024
Vs
1. Paresh K.Mehta (Died)
S/o.Kirtilal Kalidas Mehta,
Director of Suraj Agro Infrastructure
India Pvt. Ltd., 114/B, Tahnee Heights,
66, Nepeansea Road, Malabar Hills,
Mumbai, Maharashtra-400006
2. Kaushik K Mehta
S/o.Kirtilal Kalidas Mehta,
134/B, Tahnee Heights,
66, Nepeansea Road, Malabar Hills,
Mumbai, Maharashtra-400006
3. Smita Paresh Mehta
W/o Paresh K.Mehta
114/B, Tahnee Heights, 66,
Nepeansea Road, Malabar Hills,
Mumbai, Maharashtra-400006
4. Paras Paresh Mehta
S/o Paresh K.Mehta
114/B, Tahnee Heights, 66,
Nepeansea Road, Malabar Hills,
Mumbai, Maharashtra-400006
__________
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:54 pm )
CRP.Nos.4608 & 4610 of 2024
Saloni Saumil Parikh
5.
D/o Paresh K Mehta
14, Tytan, 66, Nepean Sea Road,
Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 006
(R1 Died & R3 to R5 were brought on record
as LRs of the deceased R1 vide order of
Court dated 23.9.2026 made in CMP.Nos.
19905, 19907 & 19908 of 2026 in
CRP.No.4608 of 2024 by NAVJ)
(R1 Died & R3 to R5 were brought on record
as LRs of the deceased R1 vide order of
Court dated 07.10.2026 made in CMP.Nos.
17148, 17153 & 17157 of 2026 in
CRP.No.4610 of 2024 by NAVJ)
...Respondents in both
CRPs
PETITIONS under Article 227 of The Constitution of India
against the common order dated 26.4.2024 made respectively in
I.A.Nos.6 and 5 of 2022 in O.S.No.913 of 2021 on the file of the
Fourth Additional District Court, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner in
both the CRPs: Mr.Sathish Parasaran, SC for
Mr.Arun Karthik Mohan &
Mr.Harshvardan Arora
For Respondents
in both CRPs: R1-died
Mr.Om Prakash for
Mr.J.Kingsly Solomon for R3 to R5
__________
Page 3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:54 pm )
CRP.Nos.4608 & 4610 of 2024
Mr.R.Murari, SC for
Ms.Preeti Mohan
Ms.R.Madhumitha &
Mr.Kaushik K.Mehta for R2
COMMON ORDER
These civil revision petitions have been filed under Article 227
of The Constitution of India challenging the common order dated
26.4.2024 made respectively in I.A.Nos.6 and 5 of 2022 in O.S.No.
913 of 2021 on the file of the Fourth Additional District Court,
Coimbtore (for short, the Court below) wherein the applications filed
by the petitioners/D1 & D2 seeking for rejection of the plaint, came
to be dismissed.
2. During the pendency of these revisions, the first
respondent/first plaintiff died and his legal heirs were brought on
record.
3. Respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs filed the said suit seeking for
the relief of declaration to declare that they were entitled to and
were the rightful owners of 56% of the 80% equity shares held by
__________
Page 4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:54 pm )
CRP.Nos.4608 & 4610 of 2024
rd
D2/petitioner in CRP.No.4608 of 2024 in the 3 defendant company
and to direct D2 to transfer 15,90,399 equity shares to respondents
1 & 2/plaintiffs and for permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from interfering with the rights of respondents 1 and 2/
rd
plaintiffs in the shares of the 3 defendant company.
4. Later, D1 & D2 filed I.A.Nos.5 and 6 of 2022 under Order
VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking to reject the
plaint on the ground that there was no cause of action for filing the
said suit; that it was barred by law in terms of Order II Rule 2(3) of
the CPC and that it was also barred by the law of limitation.
5. The Court below, after considering the rival contentions,
came to the conclusion that there were no merits in the said
applications and accordingly, dismissed them by the impugned
common order. Aggrieved by that, the above revision petitions have
been filed before this Court.
6. The main ground that was urged on the side of the
petitioners/D1 & D2 is that even on a plain reading of the averments
__________
Page 5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:54 pm )
CRP.Nos.4608 & 4610 of 2024
made in the plaint in O.S.No.913 of 2021, it was admitted that the
earlier suit in O.S.No.1005 of 2021 was filed by the same plaintiffs
before the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore on the same cause of
action; and that based on those averments alone, the present suit
was barred under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC since the plaintiffs did
not seek for any leave to file the subsequent suit in O.S.No.913 of
2021 to pray for a larger relief.
7. The second ground that has been urged on the side of the
petitioners/D1 & D2 is that the plaintiffs were relying on an oral
agreement and a share pledge agreement (SPA), which had taken
place in the year 2012 whereas the present suit was filed only in the
year 2021 and that the same was barred by limitation.
8. The third ground that has been urged on the side of the
petitioners/D1 & D2 is that there was no cause of action for filing
the present suit since the oral agreement and the SPA were relied
upon by respondents 1 & 2/plaintiffs in relation to the shares of the
rd
3 defendant company, that the question of title of 56% out of 80%
shares has not yet been decided and that in the absence of such
__________
Page 6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:54 pm )
CRP.Nos.4608 & 4610 of 2024
adjudication, there was no cause of action for filing the present suit.
9. The last ground that has been urged on the side of the
petitioners/D1 & D2 is that the Court below did not have the
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit since not even a
part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial limits of the
Court below.
10. Per contra, it is contended on the side of respondents 2 to
5 that the issue of res judicata cannot be considered in an
application filed seeking to reject the plaint in view of the judgment
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.Valliammai Vs. S.Ramanathan
[Civil Appeal No.3624 of 2024 dated 16.4.2026] and that the
cause of action was clearly spelt out in the averments that have
been made in the plaint to the effect that the petitioners/D1 & D2
attended the annual general meeting that took place during
September 2021 and started creating a cloud over the plaintiffs’
rd
right and title in respect of the shares in the 3 defendant company.
__________
Page 7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:54 pm )
CRP.Nos.4608 & 4610 of 2024
11. In so far as the issue of limitation is concerned, it is
contended on the side of respondents 2 to 5 that it is a mixed
question of fact and law, which can be decided only after the
evidence is let in by both parties and at the time of final disposal of
the present suit.
12. In so far as the issue of territorial jurisdiction that has
been questioned by the petitioners/D1 & D2 is concerned, it is
contended on the side of respondents 2 to 5 that it is not a ground
for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
13. Even though these civil revision petitions were filed
under Article 227 of The Constitution of India, they are
converted into one under Section 115 of the CPC and this Court
has heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective petitioner in both the cases and the respective learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 to 5 in both the cases.
14. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the
respective learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
__________
Page 8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:54 pm )
CRP.Nos.4608 & 4610 of 2024
materials available on record and more particularly the impugned
common order.
15. The petitioners/D1 & D2 raised three grounds for rejection
of the plaint. They are that the present suit was (i) bad due to lack
of cause of action; (ii) barred under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC
based on the very averments made in the plaint; and (iii) barred
under the law of limitation.
16. The Court below, while dismissing the said applications,
culled out the facts and the contentions raised on both sides starting
from pages 2 to 21 of the impugned common order. The only
reasoning given by the Court below, while dismissing the said
applications, is extracted as hereunder:
“ix. So, considering the above, the
contents raised in the petitions in I.A.No.5 of
2022 and I.A.No.6 of 2022 that no cause of
action, barred by limitation; no jurisdiction to
grant the relief sought in the suit are not proved
and the plaintiffs have established the
cognizance made under Section 9 of the CPC.
Hence, this Court finds no merits in the
__________
Page 9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:54 pm )
CRP.Nos.4608 & 4610 of 2024
applications I.A.No.5 of 2022 & I.A.No.6 of 2022
and the Court is inclined to dismiss the
applications. Thus, the point is answered
accordingly.”
17. The Court below is expected to deal with all the grounds
raised by the petitioners/D1 & D2 in the applications filed for
rejection of the plaint and the impugned common order is bereft of
any reasons. The Court below rendered a finding that the
petitioners/D1 & D2 had not proved that there was no cause of
action and that the suit was barred by limitation. In the considered
view of this Court, there is no question of proving these facts while
dealing with the application for rejection of the plaint. The Court
below is only expected to go into the averments made in the plaint
together with the documents filed along with the plaint and nothing
more. Hence, the impugned common order passed by the Court
below is liable to be set aside and the said applications must be
remitted back to the Court below to be dealt with on their own
merits and in accordance with law to pass a reasoned order. That
exercise cannot be done by this Court since this Court is only testing
legality of the impugned common order passed by the Court below.
__________
Page 10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:54 pm )
CRP.Nos.4608 & 4610 of 2024
18. In the light of the above discussions, the above civil
revision petitions are allowed and the impugned common order
dated 26.4.2024 made in I.A.Nos.5 and 6 of 2022 in O.S.No.913 of
2021 on the file of the Fourth Additional District Court, Coimbtore is
set aside. I.A.Nos.5 and 6 of 2022 in O.S.No.913 of 2021 are
remitted back to the file of the Fourth Additional District Court,
Coimbatore. The Court below shall deal with the said applications on
their own merits and in accordance with law and after affording an
opportunity to both sides, pass a reasoned order within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Consequently, the connected CMPs are closed.
27-10-2026
To
The Fourth Additional District
Court, Coimbatore.
RS
__________
Page 11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:54 pm )
CRP.Nos.4608 & 4610 of 2024
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J
RS
CRP.Nos.4608 & 4610 of 2024 &
CMP.Nos.25776, 25777, 25787 &
25788 of 2024
27-10-2026
__________
Page 12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:54 pm )