9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the court to entertain the petition. 2. Whether the petition is within the prescribed time limit. 3. Effect of previous applications of similar nature being dismissed in default. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Court to Entertain the Petition: The main question was whether the petition under section 153A(1)(f) of the Companies Act, 1913, read with section 647 of the Companies Act, 1956, was maintainable. The appellant argued that the terms "to secure that the reconstruction or amalgamation shall be fully and effectively carried out" included applications for directions to the transferee company to pay the creditors of the transferor company. The respondents contended that the provisions were only intended to deal with matters incidental, consequential, and supplemental to the amalgamation, necessary to give effect to the amalgamation and reconstruction. The court held that the respondents' contention must prevail. It was determined that the liability of the transferor company, which arose before the amalgamation, could not be enforced against the transferee company under section 153A(1)(f) as it was not necessary to secure that the amalgamation was fully and effectively carried out. The court concluded that the petition was not maintainable under the said provision. 2. Whether the Petition is Within the Prescribed Time Limit: The appellant contended that the petition was not barred by time, arguing that article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, did not apply to the petition. The respondents relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Co. P. Ltd., which the District Judge had also relied upon. The court examined various decisions and concluded that article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, would apply to applications under special statutes, including the Companies Act. However, the Supreme Court in Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli, held that article 137 did not extend to applications under special statutes. Consequently, the court concluded that article 137 did not apply to the proceedings, and the petition was not barred by time. 3. Effect of Previous Applications of Similar Nature Being Dismissed in Default: The respondents conceded that the dismissal of two earlier petitions did not debar the institution of the third petition. Therefore, this issue did not survive for consideration. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the petition was not maintainable under section 153A(1)(f) of the Companies Act, 1913, and the corresponding provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. However, the court held that the petition was not barred by time under article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as it did not apply to applications under special statutes. The appeal was dismissed with no costs.
|
