2021 (5) TMI 225 - HC - Companies Law

Recall of order - seeking prosecution of the Respondents for allegedly committing perjury in relation to the proceedings before this Court by making false and contradictory averments in the counter affidavit - HELD THAT - There cannot be any debate on the proposition raised by Mr. Savla that a review petition does not lie under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, except for clerical and arithmetical errors. However, after much cogitation, the judgement deserves to be recalled for the reason set out hereinafter - Finding that the allegations of perjury levelled in the present petition directly or indirectly touched upon the issues pending before the NCLT, this Court was of the view that the issues raised in the present petition ought to be raised before the NCLT, being intrinsically linked. Application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Review and recall of judgment dated 13.08.2020 sought by the Petitioner.
2. Allegations of perjury by the Petitioner against the Respondents.
3. Disposal of the petition without entering into the merits of the perjury allegations.
4. Consent order passed by the Supreme Court impacting the decision of the High Court.
5. Opposition by the Respondents to the review petition's maintainability.
6. Consideration of the power of review under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
7. Direction by the Supreme Court to decide disputes before NCLT.
8. Withdrawal of Co. Pet. 114/2007 by the Petitioner before NCLT.
9. Recall of judgment dated 13.08.2020 due to the withdrawal of Co. Pet. 114/2007.
10. No expression of opinion on the merits of the perjury allegations.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The Petitioner filed an application seeking the review and recall of the judgment dated 13.08.2020, primarily based on the grounds related to the allegations of perjury against the Respondents. The prayers in the review petition included recalling the judgment and initiating criminal trial proceedings for perjury. The Petitioner contended that false statements were made in a counter affidavit filed before the High Court, leading to the request for a review.

2. The Petitioner had filed a petition under Section 340 Cr.P.C, alleging perjury by the Respondents in the counter affidavit. The arguments presented highlighted the false statements and contradictory averments made by the Respondents. The judgment dated 13.08.2020 disposed of the petition without delving into the merits of the perjury allegations, citing a consent order by the Supreme Court as a reason for refraining from entertaining the petition on its merits.

3. The Supreme Court's directions, as per a consent order, played a crucial role in the High Court's decision-making process. The High Court refrained from entering into the substance of the perjury allegations due to the directions provided by the Supreme Court, which charted a course of action for resolving the disputes between the parties involved.

4. The Respondents, represented by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jay Savla, opposed the review petition's maintainability, citing the absence of a review power under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Respondents also argued that the High Court's decision aligned with the Supreme Court's directions, emphasizing the need to address the disputes through the prescribed course of action.

5. After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the Court acknowledged the absence of a general review power under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, except for clerical and arithmetical errors. However, upon further deliberation, the Court found merit in recalling the judgment based on specific grounds related to the withdrawal of Co. Pet. 114/2007 before the NCLT.

6. The withdrawal of Co. Pet. 114/2007 by the Petitioner before the NCLT on 07.02.2020 was a significant development that influenced the Court's decision to recall the judgment dated 13.08.2020. The Court noted that since the petition was disposed of based on the pendency of Co. Pet. 114/2007, the withdrawal of the same altered the circumstances, leading to the judgment's recall.

7. The Court clarified that the recall of the judgment was solely based on the withdrawal of Co. Pet. 114/2007 and did not reflect any opinion on the merits of the perjury allegations. The decision highlighted the procedural intricacies and the impact of the NCLT's order on the High Court's jurisdiction over the matter.

8. The Court allowed the application for recall, emphasizing the procedural implications of the NCLT's decision on the High Court's jurisdiction. The judgment dated 13.08.2020 was recalled without delving into the substantive perjury allegations, maintaining a focus on the procedural developments that warranted the recall.