2006 (2) TMI 292 - SC - Companies Law

Refusal to review its judgment by High Court - Held that - Appeal dismissed. As on the materials, it was found that appeleant had such an opportunity, a notice in that behalf having been taken out to him and served on him. His plea that he had no notice was found to be unacceptable. It is also seen that instead of taking appropriate steps at appropriate times, the appellant had indulged in initiating proceedings one after another which were all found to be untenable and without merit. In the circumstances, one can only say that the appellant has to thank himself for the situation he finds himself in, even if there is any merit in his claims. The High Court cannot be faulted for refusing to review its order dismissing the Company Appeal, or in dismissing the Company Appeal itself.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the High Court's refusal to review its judgment in Company Appeal, maintainability of the appeal under section 483 of the Companies Act, interpretation of the orders dated 7-9-2001, 22-7-1999, and 16-8-2002, review of the misfeasance application order, appellant's conduct during the proceedings, opportunity to present contentions, and justification of the High Court's decision.

The Supreme Court judgment dealt with an appeal challenging the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench's decision to refuse a review of its judgment in Company Appeal No. 3 of 2002. The appellant, a legal representative of an ex-Director of a company in liquidation, sought to challenge orders dated 7-9-2001, 22-7-1999, and 16-8-2002. The appeal was limited to reviewing the order dated 16-8-2002, which dismissed the application for review of the misfeasance application order. The Division Bench held that the appellant's conduct was dilatory and dismissed the appeal. The appellant then filed a petition for review, which was also dismissed by the High Court on 18-7-2003, leading to the current appeal.

The judgment discussed the maintainability of the appeal under section 483 of the Companies Act. The Court assumed the appeal was maintainable despite the broad language of section 483, which does not provide for an appeal against an order rejecting a review application. The Court proceeded with the case under this assumption.

The Court analyzed the interpretation of the orders dated 7-9-2001, 22-7-1999, and 16-8-2002. It clarified that the appeal was limited to reviewing the order dated 16-8-2002, which dismissed the application for review of the misfeasance application order. The Division Bench correctly refused to consider the review of all prior orders, focusing only on the order dated 16-8-2002.

The judgment delved into the review of the misfeasance application order and the appellant's conduct during the proceedings. The Court found that the appellant had ample opportunity to present contentions, and his claim of not receiving notice was deemed unacceptable. The appellant's repeated unfounded proceedings were seen as dilatory tactics, justifying the High Court's decision to dismiss the appeal and review petition.

The Court concluded that the High Court's decision to refuse a review and dismiss the appeal was justified. The appellant's conduct and failure to take appropriate steps were highlighted as reasons for the unfavorable outcome. Ultimately, the Court confirmed the High Court's order and dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds for interference.