9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 801 - HC - Companies LawReview petition - Appellant seeks review that property at G-58, Sector-6, Noida was not allotted to the company in the family settlement but was allowed to respondent Nos.2 & 3 but the Court records to the contrary - Held that - The question whether the claim made on the basis of a lease deed stated to have been entered into on 27.07.1982, which is filed not in the course of the appeal proceedings, but only with the review petition, can be entertained and it can be held that the property could not have been the subject matter of the family arrangement is a question which requires to be examined in detail and, therefore, cannot be gone into while exercising the power of review. The error must be manifest on the face of the judgment and should be so clear that no Court would permit such an error or mistake to remain on record. The lease document dated 27.07.1982 admittedly was not before the Court at the time when the appeal was decided. The review petitioner himself had accepted the family settlement for a period of 15 to 16 years and did not raise any question. The review petition itself states that the said lease document is being placed on record along with the review petition. It thus appears to me that I cannot examine the claim under Section 114 of the CPC as it would involve a detailed factual investigation which is beyond the scope of Section 114. - Decided against appellant.
Issues:
1. Review of the order passed by the Court in Company Appeal (SB) No.69/2011. 2. Alleged mistakes in the judgment regarding property allotment and applicability of Section 108 of the Companies Act. 3. Preliminary objection to the review petition based on delay and non-acceptance of claims by the Court. 4. Interpretation of the family arrangement and the validity of the property allotment. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Review of the Court's Order The petitioner filed Company Application No.179/2014 seeking a review of the order passed in Company Appeal (SB) No.69/2011. The review was sought based on two points raised by the petitioner regarding alleged mistakes in the judgment. Issue 2: Alleged Mistakes in the Judgment The petitioner contended that the property at G-58, Sector-6, Noida was not allotted to the company as stated in the judgment but to respondent Nos.2 & 3. Additionally, the petitioner argued that the Court did not provide findings on the applicability of the judgments cited in support of the proposition that Section 108 of the Companies Act is mandatory. Issue 3: Preliminary Objection and Non-Acceptance of Claims The respondent raised a preliminary objection to the review petition based on a 59-day delay, which was not adequately explained by the petitioner. It was argued that the Court's non-acceptance of the claim regarding property allotment cannot be the basis for a review application. The respondent also contended that the Court's judgment was premised on the validity of the family arrangement, leading to the decision not to consider the authorities cited by the petitioner regarding the mandatory nature of Section 108 of the Companies Act. Issue 4: Interpretation of Family Arrangement and Property Allotment The Court analyzed the petitioner's claim that the property was not part of the family settlement and was allotted to respondent Nos.2 & 3. However, the Court found that the lease deed presented by the petitioner was not considered during the appeal proceedings and could not be entertained during the review. The Court emphasized that the power of review can only be exercised in the presence of a patent error in the judgment, which was not apparent in this case. The judgment was based on the validity of the family arrangement, and technicalities regarding Section 108 were not deemed necessary due to the acceptance of the arrangement by the parties involved. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the review application and the associated condonation of delay application, stating that the claims made did not demonstrate a manifest error in the judgment that warranted a review.
|
