1993 (8) TMI 248 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
- Jurisdiction of the Rent Controller in passing the ejectment order.
- Validity of the ejectment order in light of the Companies Act and permission from the Calcutta High Court.
- Res judicata principle in execution proceedings.

Jurisdiction of the Rent Controller:
The judgment involves an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for ejectment of the respondents from certain premises. The Rent Controller found that the respondents had not paid rent and had ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period. The ejectment application was allowed, and the petitioners were ordered to be ejected from the premises by the Rent Controller. This order became final between the parties.

Validity of the Ejectment Order and Companies Act Compliance:
Subsequently, execution proceedings were initiated by the decree-holders to seek possession of the premises. The official liquidator, representing the petitioner-company under liquidation, objected to the execution on the grounds that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to pass the ejectment order. The official liquidator argued that permission from the Calcutta High Court, where liquidation proceedings were pending, was required under section 446(1) of the Companies Act. The decree-holders contended that they had obtained permission from the Calcutta High Court, which was accepted in appeal, making the execution application maintainable.

Res Judicata Principle in Execution Proceedings:
The executing court dismissed the objection petition, stating that the objection raised by the official liquidator had already been overruled by the Rent Controller, and the permission from the Calcutta High Court had been obtained. The court held that the objection raised in the execution proceedings was barred by the principle of res judicata since it had already been settled by a competent jurisdiction. The revision filed against this decision was dismissed, emphasizing that allowing such objections in execution proceedings would lead to unnecessary litigations and undermine the finality of previous court decisions.

In conclusion, the judgment upholds the validity of the ejectment order, confirms compliance with the Companies Act regarding permission from the Calcutta High Court, and applies the principle of res judicata to prevent re-litigation of issues already decided. The revision was dismissed, and parties were directed to proceed with further actions before the executing court.