1987 (5) TMI 339 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the appeal under section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966.
2. Validity of the Registrar's order directing the supply of certified copies of proxies.
3. Plaintiff's right to obtain copies of proxies from the record of the Ghaziabad Court.
4. Applicability of the term "judicial record" under the Punjab High Court Rules and Orders, Vol. V, Chapter 5B.
5. Relevance and necessity of proxies for the disposal of the suit.
6. Procedural irregularity in issuing certified copies of documents from summoned records.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the appeal under section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966:
The court examined whether the appeal was maintainable under section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966. The Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in *University of Delhi v. Hafiz Mohd. Said* interpreted the term "judgment" in section 10(1) to mean only those orders that are judgments as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, i.e., orders with the force of a decree or those mentioned in section 104 read with Order 43, rule 1. The Supreme Court in *Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben* expanded the definition to include interlocutory orders affecting valuable rights or deciding important aspects of the trial. The court concluded that the order under appeal did not qualify as a "judgment" since it did not affect any vital or valuable right of the appellant or decide any aspect of the trial.

2. Validity of the Registrar's order directing the supply of certified copies of proxies:
The Registrar's order dated November 14, 1986, directed the supply of certified copies of proxies as per rules. The learned single judge upheld this order, stating that it did not affect the appellant's rights and was necessary for the plaintiff to prove his case. The court found that the Registrar's order was justified and did not prejudice the appellant.

3. Plaintiff's right to obtain copies of proxies from the record of the Ghaziabad Court:
The plaintiff, a registered shareholder, sought certified copies of proxies relevant to the suit. The proxies were part of the record of a suit pending in the Ghaziabad Court, summoned by the Delhi High Court. The appellant argued that the plaintiff, being a stranger to the Ghaziabad suit, could not obtain copies of the judicial record. The court noted that the proxies were material for the disposal of the suit and that the plaintiff would be entitled to obtain certified copies if the proxies were deposited in the Delhi High Court.

4. Applicability of the term "judicial record" under the Punjab High Court Rules and Orders, Vol. V, Chapter 5B:
The appellant contended that the term "judicial record" in the Punjab High Court Rules and Orders did not include records of a suit pending in another court. The court found that the proxies, though part of the record of the Ghaziabad Court, were relevant and material for the Delhi High Court suit. The court held that issuing certified copies from the summoned record did not contravene the rules.

5. Relevance and necessity of proxies for the disposal of the suit:
The court emphasized that the proxies were crucial for determining the validity of the election of directors. The plaintiff's case hinged on the validity and revocation of proxies. The court found that the proxies were necessary for justice and that the plaintiff could not obtain authenticated copies from the Ghaziabad Court.

6. Procedural irregularity in issuing certified copies of documents from summoned records:
The appellant argued that issuing certified copies from the summoned records was procedurally irregular. The court dismissed this argument, noting that the proxies would be scrutinized and admitted in evidence during the trial. The court held that the order for certified copies did not affect the merits of the suit or any vital right of the appellant.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appeal was not maintainable as the order under appeal was not a "judgment" within the meaning of section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.