9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (3) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hough it was contended that the court had no power to appoint an advocate-chairman, the learned judge sitting on the company side declined to appoint an advocate on the ground that there was no need therefore. The appeal is from that order. Pending the appeal, a Division Bench of this court by an order dated September 12, 1974, on a relative application directed that the convening of the general body meeting of the respondent herein on September 14, 1974, be and is hereby stayed pending further orders on this petition . A certified copy of this order, as we find from the record of evidence, was served at the registered office of the company on September 13, 1974. Nevertheless, the meeting as notified was allowed to take place the next day ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise of the inherent powers of this court under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this court should, in such circumstances, and in order to meet the ends of justice, put back the parties in the same position as they had been immediately before the order staying the proposed meeting was issued. We shall first examine whether in such circumstances this court can invoke its inherent power under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since the matter is not res integra , the best way to approach the question is to refer to the decided cases and in the light of it, to come to a conclusion. Cases are all agreed that, whether it is a stay order, or an injunction, essentially, there is no difference between them except that in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owledge of the stay order, could not be said to be acting without jurisdiction in making an order contrary to the stay order, nevertheless, it is not powerless to undo any possible injustice that might have been caused to the party in whose favour the stay order was passed during the period till the court had knowledge of the stay order. The Supreme Court went on to observed: We are of opinion that section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure would always be available to the court executing the decree, for in such a case, when the stay order is brought to its notice, it can always act under section 151 and set aside steps taken between the time the stay order was passed and the time it was brought to its notice, if that is necessary in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of Bihar AIR 1969 Pat 72 and Hari Nandan Agrawal v. S. N. Pandita AIR 1975 All 48,51, are cases of injunction against parties. In the earlier case, a lease deed executed was in violation of an injunction. After holding that Order XXXIX did not provide for relief, the court was of opinion that, in exercise of its inherent power, it could set aside the lease deed as it was violative of the injunction order. In Hari Nandan Agrawal v. S.N. Pandita AIR 1975 All 48,51, a similar view was held and it was said that in such circumstances the parties in the interests of justice should be put back in the same position as they stood prior to the issuance of the order of injunction. This is what the Allahabad High Court said : So far as F. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... art from section 151, we should observe that, as a matter of judicial policy, the court should guard against itself being stultified in circumstances like this by holding that it is powerless to undo a wrong done in disobedience of the court's orders. But in this case it is not necessary to go to that extent as we hold that the power is available under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Panchapakesa Ayyar, for the respondents, however, contends that our view, as indicated above, would prevail only as between the parties in court, but when third parties have acquired rights by reason of something happening, though it is in contravention or in disobedience of the orders of the court, the legal position would be different. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f an order forbidding him from incurring debts. The defence in the suit to enforce the debt was that the incurring of the debt was in violation of a prohibitory order. The court declined to accept the defence. It may be seen at once that the justice of the case demanded that the karnavan was made liable to the debt, more especially when it was incurred for necessity of the tarwad. In that case, the learned judges confined themselves to a consideration of Order XXXIX and their attention was not drawn to their inherent power under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if their powers under section 151 had been invoked, in that case too, we have no doubt that the court would have come to the same conclusion because of the exigencies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
