9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, even if there is any merit in his claims. The High Court cannot be faulted for refusing to review its order dismissing the Company Appeal, or in dismissing the Company Appeal itself. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1156 OF 2006 - - - Dated:- 17-2-2006 - S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ. Gagan Sanghi and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Appellant. T. Raja and S.C. Sharma for the Respondent. JUDGMENT P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. - Leave granted. 2. This appeal, as can be seen from paragraph 1 of the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal, challenges the order of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench dated 18-7-2003 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court refused to review its judgment in Company Appeal No. 3 of 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al was not accompanied by even an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal as against the orders dated 7-9-2001 and 22-7-1999 even though the challenges to them were clearly barred by limitation. The Division Bench of the High Court, therefore, ordered on 19-9-2002 that the orders passed by the Company Judge on 7-9-2001 and 22-7-1999 were not amenable to scrutiny for their sustainability in the appeal filed and the appeal had to be confined to one from the order dated 16-8-2002. Thereafter, the appeal was dismissed holding that the Company Judge was justified in refusing to review the orders passed in the Misfeasance Application. The appellant then filed a petition to review the judgment in Company Appeal No. 3 of 2002. By o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that application held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record which justified a review of the order dated 7-9-2001. The application for review was thus dismissed on 16-8-2002. It was this order that was dealt with in Company Appeal No. 3 of 2002 by the Division Bench in its order which was sought to be reviewed. The order specified that the appeal was against the order dated 16-8-2002. Therefore, the application for review filed by the appellant before the Division Bench could be treated only as an application for review of the order dated 19-9-2002 refusing to interfere with the order dated 16-8-2002. It is not possible to accept the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the Division Bench while exercising i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Company Judge on the misfeasance application. The court also found that there was no ground made out for reviewing its order dated 19-9-2002. On a consideration of the relevant aspects, we find that the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge were both justified in not acceding to the prayer for review made by the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order on the misfeasance application was made without the appellant, who was only a legal representative of one of the Directors, really getting an opportunity to put forward his contentions. But on the materials, it was found that he had such an opportunity, a notice in that behalf having been taken out to him and served on him. His plea that he had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
