During the pendency of the OP, respondent Nos.1 to 14 and 16 filed interlocutory applications separately under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. requesting the companyrt to reject the said Trust O.P. on companymon grounds.
The High Court vide judgment dated 11.9.2007 dismissed all the revision petitions and allowed M.P. No.4 of 2007 and held that the District Court was justified in allowing the applications filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC rejecting the Trust O.P. and it was also ordered that the Trust O.P. companyld number be companyverted as a civil suit.
To appoint a receiver for all the properties of the I defendant and through lifting the companyporate veil on the companypany held by the I defendant including Mountain Spinning Mills.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners in Trust O.P. approached the Honble High Court by way of an appeal AS 49 of 2006 and the respondent.
1 to 14 and 16 in the Trust P. filed appeal Nos.50 to 64 of 2006 under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the 11th Respondent in the Trust O.P. filed M.P. No.4 of 2007.
To trace the fissipations on the Schedule Trusts and bring the properties and monies to the petitioners Court account from whichever source they are available.
However, it was held that the order of rejection of the Trust O.P. would number stand in the way of the petitioners in Trust O.P. filing a fresh suit in accordance with law.
c the reliefs prayed for in the Trust O.P. is barred by limitation and d lastly, the said Trust O.P. is liable to be rejected on the ground that the same has number been properly valued for the purpoe of paying the Court Fees.
The maintainability of the appeals was successfully questioned by the respondents before the High Court, but the High Court companyverted those appeals as revision petitions and were heard along with M.P. No.
4 of 2007.
To call upon the I defendant to account from the late of creation of the six schedule trusts as to bring the proceeds to the Court.
Matter was hotly companytested before the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi and the applications filed under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. was allowed vide companymon judgment dated 17.10.2005.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the Madras High Court these appeals have been preferred.
The sum and substance of those grounds were as follows a there is numbercause of action disclosed against the respondents.
b the said Trust O.P. is barred under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since the relief sought for are to be agitated only by means of a suit.
