9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 865X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditors but observed that the meeting will be held after giving due notice to the secured creditors. The chairman of the meeting submitted his report. Thereafter, Engineering Majdoor Sangh, acting through Shri K. W. Desai filed Company Petition No. 224 of 1996 praying for sanction of the scheme of compromise or arrangement by virtue of section 394 of the Act. An impression created by the applicant in the said application was that there were no secured creditors of the company in liquidation. In paragraph 12 of the said application it was specifically mentioned that "notice of this petition need not be served on any person." Consequently, by order dated September 23, 1997, this court allowed the petition and sanctioned the scheme presented by the Engineering Majdoor Sangh, Baroda, acting through Shri K. W. Desai without issuing any notice to any party. The court also passed an order directing the official liquidator to hand over the assets to the said applicant union after taking complete inventory thereof. State Bank of India, the shareholders of the company and unsecured creditors of the company in liquidation filed the above numbered company applications for review of the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicants and from whom, shall be considered at the next date of hearing while considering the question whether any action is to be taken against Mr. K. W. Desai. The court cannot, however, help observing that even after the court had pointed out to Mr. K. W. Desai appearing for the union that in view of the admitted non-compliance with the mandatory statutory provisions of section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, and rule 80 of the Companies (Court) Rules, whether there was any possible ground on which the prayer for review could be opposed and that the court was prepared to consider the prayer for review separately from the prayer for taking any action against Mr. Desai; even then Mr. K. W. Desai wasted considerable time of this court by persisting with untenable arguments in respect of the prayer for review and thereby wasted about four hours of valuable judicial time." However, Shri K. W. Desai sent a telegram addressed to me personally that he was "self not well can't travel labourers informed about adjournment on dated December 30,1999. Regret advised five days rest suffering attack of diabetes please adjourn Company Applications Nos. 513, 515, 516 and 530 of 1997 in Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had made false statements in the petition for sanction of the scheme in Company Petition No. 224 of 1996. At the request of Shri Barot the hearing of this application was adjourned to June 30, 2000, on which date Shri K. W. Desai tendered his affidavit which is on record. Thereafter, the hearing of the application was adjourned to July 7, 2000, to enable learned counsel for the parties to make their respective submissions. Having perused the relevant record and heard learned counsel for the par ties, this court is of the view that Shri K. W. Desai had made incorrect statements in Company Petition No. 224 of 1996 which led the company judge then hearing the petition to pass the orders dated September 23, 1997, for sanctioning the scheme, compromise and arrangement proposed by Engineering Majdoor Sangh through Shri K. W. Desai. In this connection, the following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana [1995] 3 SCC 757; AIR 1995, SC 1795, are required to be considered (page 758) : "Any conduct which has the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or the due course of judicial proceedings amounts to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merit acceptance. An apology merely to get protection against rigours of law is no apology. The apology cannot be used as a weapon of defence to get purged of the guilt. If the contemher tenders an apology which is defective such apology cannot be accepted. In my opinion, Shri K. W. Desai had misled this court for passing the impugned order dated September 23,1997, for sanctioning the scheme of compromise by misleading the court about the absence of secured creditors. The tenor of making averments in Company Petition No. 224 of 1996 indicates that the deponent of the petition was aware of the fact that there were secured creditors and that something was being kept away from this court but the deponent was trying cleverly to guard against his statement being branded as a false statement and, therefore, without joining anyone Shri K. W. Desai created an impression that there was no secured creditor and even misled the court in dispensing with the publication of public notice required by rule 80 of the Companies (Court) Rules. The affidavit of Shri K. W. Desai running into 117 pages in reply to Company Petition No. 513 of 1997 shows the manner in which and the length to which Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
