Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2005 (6) TMI 292

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... any Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi dated April 4, 2005 in Company Application Nos. 170 of 2003 and 89 of 2004 in Company Petition No. 73 of 2000. 5. The Respondents took out Application under section 634A of the Companies Act (thereinafter referred to as the 'Act') read with Regulation 44 of the Company Board Rules and Regulations, 1981 for implementation/execution of the order dated 15th July, 2002 passed in Company Application No. 86 of 2003 and order dated 13th December, 2002 in Company Application No. 71 of 2002. 6. By the impugned order, the Company Law Board has observed that to get the said orders executed, it was appointing retired Judge of the Supreme Court as Executing Authority. It is noted in the order that the Appellan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Andheri Pro-perty after giving one month's notice. The details of the property were to be furnished by the respondents herein. It is lastly provided that if any balance amount is left after discharging the dues of the respondents, the same was to be paid to the appellants herein. This decision is subject-matter of challenge in the present Appeal. 8. Essentially, the argument before this Court is that for the nature of order passed by the Company Law Board, the same is unknown to provision of section 634A of the Act. It is contended on behalf of the Appellants that the scope of section 634A of the Act is well defined. It, no doubt, enables the Company Law Board to enforce any order made by it, but that has to be done in the same manner, a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ge of the Supreme Court, who would himself supervise the processes of disposal of the assets and properties of the Company. According to him, the order is not in the nature of delegation of the judicial functions of the Company Law Board, but only permits the Executing Authority so appointed under the orders, to dispose of the properties as may be appropriate, which again, can be and will have to be subject to the final orders to be passed by the Company Law Board for the purpose of confirmation of sales or any related issues. On this argument, the Counsel for the Respondents submits that no question of law arises for consideration of this Court, for which, this Appeal should be entertained. 10. Having considered the rival submissions, I h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Board is expected to record its satisfaction in that behalf. 12. In the present case, the first requirement is satisfied, as the Board has observed in the impugned order that it has become necessary to exercise powers under section 634A of the Act to get the orders passed by it executed. While doing so, the Board is competent to take the assistance of any other person. There is nothing in the Act to preclude the Board to do so. In other words, merely because the Board has appointed retired Judge of the Supreme Court to facilitate the disposal of the assets and properties of the Company, that by itself, will not be sufficient to presume that the Board is unable to execute its order; and, therefore, to hold that it ought to have referred .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... will be judicial decision to be reached after considering objections, if any. Besides, the order ought to provide for the mechanism and the modalities of disposal of the properties, albeit by the Special Officer. The impugned order as mentioned earlier, is completely silent on these aspects. Rather it gives an impression that complete authority is given to the Special Officer appointed under the order, including on matters which are within the domain of the Board and are expected to be discharged only by the Board. 15. In the circumstances, the order under challenge cannot be sustained in law, for which reason, the same is set-aside. 16. While allowing this Appeal with no order as to costs, the Applications, which were originally preferr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates