2010 (8) TMI 165 - HC - Companies Law

Whether the court of appeal can interfere with the decision rendered by the Judge on recollection and/or assimilation of the happening of event transcribed in the order? Held that - Here is a case where the Hon ble First Court itself recorded that there is no such error, omission or a mistake in recording of the statement of fact of the happing of such State. Such recording of statement is conclusive and neither the lawyer nor the litigant may claim to contradict before the Appellate Court except before the judge himself. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the court of appeal can interfere with the decision rendered by the Judge on recollection and/or assimilation of the happening of events transcribed in the order.
2. Whether the application for correction of an order dated 12-4-2007 was justified.
3. The legal standing of Ajit Kumar Agarwal's application for addition as a party to the company petition No. 252 of 1985.
4. The impact of the Memorandum of Understanding on the proceedings.
5. The application of sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, and relevant procedural rules.

Analysis:

Interference by the Court of Appeal:
The primary issue revolves around whether the appellate court can interfere with the decision rendered by the judge based on the recollection of events. The judgment emphasizes that the appellate court should not embark on an inquiry to verify the veracity of events recorded by the judge. The judge's recorded statements in the judgment are conclusive and should not be contradicted unless they are illogical or do not withstand scrutiny. This principle is supported by the judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak AIR 1982 SC 1249.

Application for Correction of Order Dated 12-4-2007:
The appellants argued that there was a mistake in the order dated 12-4-2007, which dismissed company application No. 302 of 2007 instead of company petition No. 252 of 1985. The court examined whether this mistake was apparent on the face of the record and concluded that the application for correction was not maintainable. The appellants' delay in filing the correction application and the fact that the order did not reflect an error that could be corrected under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure were significant factors. The court relied on Bela Debi v. Bon Behary Roy AIR 1952 Cal. 86 and Ram Bali v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2004] 10 SCC 598 to support this conclusion.

Ajit Kumar Agarwal's Application for Addition as a Party:
Ajit Kumar Agarwal filed an application to be added as a party to the company petition No. 252 of 1985. The court did not decide on his right to be added as a party in the instant appeal, focusing instead on the primary issue of the correction application. However, it acknowledged that his appeal's fate depended on the decision regarding the correction application.

Impact of the Memorandum of Understanding:
The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 26-2-2007 led to the appellants seeking to withdraw the company petition No. 252 of 1985. The court noted that the application No. 302 of 2007 was intended for the withdrawal of the main company petition and all connected applications. However, the order dated 12-4-2007 dismissed the application itself as not pressed, creating a discrepancy that the appellants sought to correct.

Application of Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956:
The court discussed the procedural rules under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, and the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. It emphasized that an application under these sections could not be withdrawn without the court's leave, as per Rule 88(2). The judgment referenced several cases, including World Wide Agencies (P.) Ltd. v. Mrs. Margarat T. Desor AIR 1990 SC 737 and L.RM.K. Narayan v. Pudhuthotam Estates Ltd. [1992] 74 Comp. Cas. 30, to illustrate the procedural nuances and the court's discretion in such matters.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed both appeals, emphasizing that the appellate court should not interfere with the judge's recorded statements unless there is a clear and apparent error. The correction application was not maintainable due to the lack of prompt action by the appellants and the absence of a clerical or ministerial mistake. The judgment underscores the importance of procedural rules and the court's discretion in handling applications under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956.

← Previous Next →