9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (5) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of the date of hearing and only, later the applicants learnt of the disposal of the petition by inspection of the record. It is claimed that the petitioner had no information regarding the contents of the petition because no copy of the petition was enclosed and hence rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, had been infringed. It is said that though the notice stated that a copy of the petition is enclosed, actually no copy was enclosed. It is claimed that the affidavit of service is not a valid affidavit and is not in the prescribed form and is not correct. It is claimed that the petition should have been dismissed for want of service or some; other order should have been passed. The objection is to the ex parte , order dated 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at there is no explanation for the delay and there is no ground for setting aside the ex parte order. It is further denied that there was an agreement to settle, the matter outside the court. On the other hand, it is claimed that a copy of the petition was given to Shri K. L. Garnbhir, who did not like to contest the matter and hence he did not put in appearance. It is denied that there was any fraud and, it is further denied that the appointment of Shrimati Promilla Gambhir was in accordance with law. It is pointed out that the said Shrimati Promilla Gambhir has been held to be not a director and this order could not be varied. The first question for decision is whether this petition is within time. Article 123 of the Limitation Act gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us, this is an authority for the proposition that art. 164 of the Limitation Act did not apply to a case like the present. I hold, this particular case can also be decided in the light of the decision just referred to. Article 123 of the Limitation Act is as follows: "To set aside a decree passed ex parte or to rehear an appeal decreed or heard ex parte." The Limitation period is 30 days The Limitation Act does not give any article relating to any other case. Thus; I would also hold that the present application is not barred by time, as it is not concerned with a decree. This brings me to the question, whether I should interfere with the decision recorded. It is quite clear from the facts stated in the application that the applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... doubtful of the applicability of O. 9, rule 13 of the Code to the case before me, there is one overriding principle that must govern cases of this type. If an order has been passed by the court on a misrepresentation, it is the duty of the court to correct that injustice. It so happens that on looking at the directors' minutes book, I find that Shri A.S. Bhatty had not attended any, meeting of the board before 27th March, 1978. The company appointed Shri Bhatty as director on 5th December, 1973, and for five years he did not attend any meeting, and, therefore, he was completely unaware of the fact that Shrimati Promilla Gambhir had been appointed a director. But this is no reason for the court to come to the conclusion that Shrimati Promill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
