9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of statutory provision under section 155(4)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 regarding the composition of the bench for hearing appeals from orders passed by a single judge of a High Court. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an appeal challenging the interpretation of section 155(4)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, which deals with the composition of the bench for hearing appeals from orders passed by a single judge of a High Court. The appellant contended that appeals should be heard by a Full Bench of the High Court, while the respondent argued for a Division Bench. The court examined the language of the statute, emphasizing its clarity and explicitness in requiring appeals to be heard by a Bench consisting of three or more judges. The court rejected the appellant's argument that a Full Court should hear the appeals, stating that a Division Bench suffices as per the statutory provision. The court invoked the principle of statutory interpretation that aims to give effect to legislative intent without rendering any part of the statute meaningless. It highlighted the importance of interpreting statutes based on their natural meaning, uninfluenced by prior legal interpretations. The court referenced various legal principles and precedents to support its conclusion that appeals from single judge orders should be heard by a Division Bench in High Courts with three or more judges. Additionally, the court addressed the appellant's alternative argument that at least three or more judges should hear the appeals, whether as a Full Court or a Bench. The court reiterated that the statutory provision clearly mandates appeals to be heard by a Division Bench consisting of two judges in High Courts with three or more judges. Consequently, the court dismissed the appellant's contentions, ruling that appeals under section 155(4)(b) of the Act shall lie before a Division Bench of two judges, in line with the statutory requirements.
|
