IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA W.P.No.37723 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) Between:
B RAMASWAMY S/O. K. BYANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, NO. 342, 4TH MAIN ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE 560086 (By Sri. RAJENDRA M.S.- Adv.) AND 1. M/S SONATA SOFTWARE LIMITED AND HAVING ITS MAIN OFFICE AT NO. 1/4, APS TRUST BUILDING, BULL TEMPLE ROAD, N R COLONY, BANGALORE 560 018.
REP BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY 2. PRADIP SHAH CHAIRMAN, SONATA SOFTWARE LTD, ... PETITIONER 72-A, EMBASSY APARTMENTS, 46, NAPEANSEA ROAD, MUMBAI 400006 3. S N TALWAR DIRECTOR, SONATA SOFTWARE LTD, 10, SHIVER SHANTY BHUVAN, 146, MAHARSHI CARVE ROAD, CHURCHGATE RECLAMATION, MUMBAI 400 020 4. B K SYNGAL DIRECTOR, SONATA SOFTWARE LTD, LCG 801 B, THE LABURNUM, SECTOR 28, GURGAON 122 002 5. M D DALAL DIRECTOR, SONATA SOFTWARE LTD, 7, SITAL SAGAR, 64, WALKESHWAR ROAD, MUMBAI 400 006 7. VIREN RAHEJA DIRECTOR, SONATA SOFTWARE LTD, ‘RAHEJAS’, 87/1, G B MARG, JUHU, MUMBAI 400 049 8. SHYAM B GHIA DIRECTOR, SONATA SOFTWARE LTD, GHIA MANSION, 18, CARMICHAEL ROAD, MUMBAI 400 026 9. VENKATARAMAN NARAYANAN CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, SONATA SOFTWARE LTD, D 902, 9TH FLOOR, LABURNUM BLOCK, BRIGADE MILLENNIUM APARTMENT, J P NAGAR, 7TH PHASE, BANGALORE 560078 ... RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 2.8.2017 PASSED BY THE XXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUGE, BANGALORE ON I.A. NO.
8 IN O.S.6453/2012 AT ANNEX-E AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE APPLICATION I.A. NO.8 FILED BY R-1.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.6453/2012. The said suit has been filed by the petitioner seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.23.19 crores along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of the suit till the date of payment. Another prayer sought by the plaintiff is to direct the defendants to issue to the plaintiff 11,20,000 equity Shares of the first defendant Company i.e., M/s Sonata Software Limited. The plaintiff has paid the court fee on the first prayer. But as far as the second prayer is concerned, the contention of the plaintiff is that the valuation for the purpose of court fee shall be made as and when the suit is decreed, vis-à-vis, the second prayer and a direction is issued to the first defendant to allot the requisite number of equity shares to the plaintiff.
2. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the value of the shares would fluctuate and that the fluctuation would have a bearing on the court fee payable and hence, the valuation of the second relief for the purpose of payment of court fee with regard to the said relief ought to be deferred.
3. He further contended that the trial court was not right in insisting the plaintiff to pay court fee in respect of the second relief on the basis of the price prevailing for each share as on the date of filing of the suit.
4. Section 10 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1958, states that on any suit in which the fee payable under the said Act on the plaint depends on the market value of the subject matter of the suit, the plaintiff shall file with the plaint a statement of the prescribed form, all particulars of subject matter of the suit and its valuation thereof, unless such particulars and the valuation are contained in the plaint. Therefore, the valuation of the subject matter of the suit ought to be as on the date of presentation of the plaint which is on the date when the suit is filed before the court.
4. Petitioner herein has paid the court fee with regard to the first relief after filing the requisite valuation slip. But as far as the second relief is concerned, no valuation has been made and the valuation slip does not include the court fee payable on that relief. In the absence of valuation being made by the plaintiff with regard to the second relief and the payment of court fee on the second relief sought by the plaintiff in the suit, the trial court was justified in directing the plaintiff to pay the requisite court fee on the basis of the price prevailing for each share on the date of filing of the suit i.e., the date of presentation of the plaint which ought to be construed as the date on which the value of share has to be reckoned. In that view of the matter, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court. There is no merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is, hence dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE psg*