9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 883X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant as under article 227 of the Constitution of India instead of treating it in view of article 226. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court has observed : "[In our opinion] where the facts justify a party in filing an application either under article 226 or 227 of the Constitution, and the party chooses to file his application under both these Articles, in fairness and justice to such party and in order not to deprive him of the valuable right of appeal the court ought to treat the application as being made under article 226." (p. 808) The Supreme Court further held while quoting the observations of the Supreme Court in the matter of Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Smt. Radhikabai AIR 1986 SC 1272 that : "Where the facts justify a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all. The language used in articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution is very wide and the power of the Supreme Court as well as of all the High Courts in India extends to issuing of orders, writs or directions including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, prohibition and certiorari as may be considered necessary for enforcement of the fundamental rights and in the case of the High Courts, for other purposes as well. In view of the express provisions in our Constitution, the court need not now look back to the early history or the procedural technicalities of these writs in English Law, nor feel oppressed by any difference or change of opinion expressed in particular cases by English Judges. It can make an order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber of years. Their accounts cannot be relied upon and balance sheets do not reflect a true and fair picture of the company s financial position. The promoters have also deliberately misled the BoB (Bank of Baroda) in the process. As the promoters have approached the Board with unclean hands, and the company s accounts are unreliable, company s reference is rejected as non-maintainable." 5. While quoting the judgment from the AAIFR, the learned Single Judge has pointed out that : "BIFR has also come to the conclusion, on the basis of record, that KDL inflated its figures of the profits and obtained finance from BoB by inflating the value of stock and presenting the misleading profit figures. KDL has not rebutted these findings. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... constitution, is confined to only jurisdiction issues arising out of the impugned orders. In other words, this court not being the Second Appellate Court sitting over the order of First Appellate Court (AAIFR), cannot appreciate the factual issues." He held that in his opinion, the observations of BIFR and affirmed by AAIFR on the conduct of petitioner in manipulating their accounts and in holding that the accounts were not thus reliable and binding on him. He pointed out that he can neither ignore these findings, nor can [he] set them aside in the writ jurisdiction. He held that those were the findings arrived at by these two authorities which were based on appreciation of facts and documents filed by the parties which obviously include ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
