9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 1239 - HC - Companies LawMaintainability of application under sections 397 and 398 of Companies Act 1956 - the original petitioners had not filed an application under section 111 of the Companies Act 1956 - HELD THAT - Appeal under section 10F is to be filed within sixty days and admittedly such sixty days has expired but within sixty days an application was filed before the Company Law Board on which a decision has been taken. Therefore this appeal filed cannot be thrown out at the threshold stage and accordingly is admitted. No purpose will be served in keeping the said appeal pending. As the only issue involved is with regard to the maintainability of this appeal which has been discussed above the order dated 27 January 2014 is set aside so also the order of 12 August 2013 whereby Company Petition No. 450 of 2011 was dismissed by overlooking the factum that a composite petition could be maintained under section 111 and sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act 1956. Appeal disposed off.
The High Court of Calcutta, presided by Hon'ble Nadira Patherya, J., addressed an appeal concerning orders dated 12 August 2013 and 27 January 2014 from the Company Law Board (CLB) in the case of Kishori Lal Agarwal v. Alliance Engg. (P.) Ltd. The original petition was filed under sections 111, 397, and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. The CLB dismissed the petition on 12 August 2013, citing the absence of an application under section 111, which rendered the application under sections 397 and 398 unsustainable.
The appellants did not appeal this decision but instead filed Company Application No. 586 of 2013, seeking rectification of the CLB's order, arguing that the original petition included section 111. The CLB dismissed this application on 27 January 2014, stating it lacked statutory power to rectify its own orders. The appeal under section 10F was filed beyond the sixty-day limit; however, the court admitted it because an application had been filed within the period, and the CLB had adjudicated on it. The court set aside both the 12 August 2013 and 27 January 2014 orders, recognizing that a composite petition could be maintained under sections 111, 397, and 398, referencing Turner Morrison Ltd. v. Jenson & Nicholson (India) Ltd. [1998] 16 SCL 619 (CLB - New Delhi). The appeal was disposed of with the clarification that the merits of the case were not considered, leaving it open for the CLB to evaluate the case on its merits. No affidavit-in-opposition was filed, and allegations in the petition were not admitted.
|
