9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Setting aside an ex parte order under Order 9, Rule 13 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Allegations of incomplete notices and improper service leading to the ex parte order. 3. Dispute regarding the appointment of a director and mismanagement of the company. 4. Determining the timeliness of the petition under Article 123 of the Limitation Act. 5. Interference with the decision based on misrepresentation and injustice. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment concerns an application to set aside an ex parte order passed in a case under Order 9, Rule 13 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application alleges incomplete notices and improper service, claiming that the petitioners were unaware of the case's contents due to missing copies of the petition. The respondents did not contest initially, assuming a settlement outside court, leading to the ex parte order dated 4th November, 1977. 2. The dispute revolves around the appointment of a director, with conflicting claims regarding the validity of the appointment. The court examined the minutes of the directors' meetings and found prima facie evidence supporting the appointment of the director in question. Despite doubts on the applicability of Order 9, Rule 13, the court emphasized correcting injustices caused by misrepresentations, especially in cases involving corporate governance and mismanagement. 3. The issue of timeliness under Article 123 of the Limitation Act was raised, arguing that the application to set aside the ex parte order was filed beyond the prescribed 30-day period. Citing a precedent from the Lahore High Court, the court held that the limitation period did not apply to cases under the Companies Act, as no decree was involved. Therefore, the application was deemed not barred by time. 4. The court highlighted the importance of addressing misrepresentations and ensuring justice in corporate matters. Despite initial doubts on the application of procedural rules, the court invoked its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the ex parte order. The decision was influenced by the need to rectify errors and ensure fair proceedings, ultimately directing a rehearing of the case for proper adjudication.
|
