9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the matter, when he has blatantly played the game of hide and seek with the court and has made every attempt to hoodwink it, we find no reason to entertain any proceedings in this regard. - C.A. NOS. 16, 127 AND 146 OF 2007 IN C.A. NO. 357 OF 2006 IN C.P. NO. 96 OF 1997 - - - Dated:- 5-12-2007 - VIJENDER JAIN AND MAHESH GROVER, JJ. A.K. Matta, K.K. Khurana, Sandeep Jain, M.S. Ratta, S.C. Nagpal and Vaibhav Dang for the Appellant. Ms. Tarun Jain for the Official Liquidator. I.P. Singh for the Respondent. Chetan Mittal and Alok Jain for Auction Purchaser. JUDGMENT C.M. No. 202 of 2007 Vijender Jain, CJ. - The application is allowed and the affidavit of Shri Naresh Chatley filed along with it is taken on record. Company Appeal No. 16 of 2007 : 2. This is an appeal under section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, "the Act") for setting aside the order dated 1-3-2007 [ Shree Dewan Steels (India) Ltd. (In Liquidation) v. Central Bank of India [2007] 139 Comp. Cas. 472 (Punj. Har.)], passed by the learned company judge in Company Application Nos. 631 and 641 of 2006 and 127 of 2007. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 999, 4 kanals of the aforesaid land was put to auction and the decree holder was the highest bidder, who gave the bid of Rs. 3,40,000. The sale was confirmed by the executing court on 18-12-1999 and a sale certificate was issued on 23-2-2000. 7. Company Application Nos. 631 and 641 of 2006 were filed by the shareholders, whereas Company Application No. 127 of 2007 was filed by Naresh Chatley through his attorney Shri Vibhu Raj Jhanji objecting to the sale of assets of the company in liquidation, which was conducted by the Official Liquidator. 8. It has been averted in the aforementioned applications, which are supported by affidavits, that M/s. Kanav Steels (P.) Ltd., prior to its change of name, had purchased 27 kanals 5 marlas of land from one Navtej Singh son of Gurcharan Singh out of the aforesaid land 19 kanals 14 marlas was of specific khasra numbers, whereas the remaining land was share of the other khasra numbers. The promoters of the company in liquidation had also purchased land measuring 9 kanals 13 marlas contiguous to the above land measuring 27 kanals 5 marlas. Six kanals and thirteen marlas of land was purchased in the name of Chatley Steels (P.) Ltd., vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the civil court in respect of the assets of the company in liquidation as no permission was sought before proceedings for sale thereof. It was held that the sale conducted by the Official Liquidator in respect of the assets of the company in liquidation would not, in any way, be affected by the proceedings of the civil court. The relevant extract of the order dated 1-3-2007, of the learned company judge is reproduced below : "The sale confirmed by the civil court in respect of the assets of the company cannot be taken into consideration as no permission of this court was sought before proceeding for the sale of the assets of the company in liquidation. In fact, such aspect is not disputed by any of the parties. Similarly, the sale of assets of Naresh Chatley by civil court will not effect the sale conducted by this court in respect of the assets of the company in liquidation. In respect of arguments that actual possession of 4 kanals has been handed over to the purchaser of the land adjacent to the road in pursuance of the civil court decree and that such delivery of possession is invalid, it is suffice to state that even if possession of specific portion has been handed over ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the near vicinity of the court complex and can be produced within half an hour to satisfy the court, but when after half an hour the matter was taken up, Shri Jhanji made a statement that Shri Chatley was not present and he would produce him in the court on the next date. The court also found that the attorney and the person in question, i.e., Naresh Chatley were evasive and doubted their bona fides. 18. On 20-9-2007, while noticing the averments, the following order was passed : "In the power of attorney filed on behalf of ex-managing director, the address of Naresh Chatley has not been disclosed. We are also not satisfied with the genuineness of this special power of attorney, in the manner, in which it has been attested by the Notary Public at Ludhiana, in view of the fact that the essentials of the particulars of the executor are not complete. Therefore, we would like to have the personal appearance of the ex-managing director in this court after 10 days. At this stage, the attorney of ex-managing director says that he will have him in this court within half an hour as he is in the near vicinity of the court complex. After half an hour, the matter has been taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ior advocate along with Shri Anshuman Sood and Shri Vibhu Raj Jhanji, advocates, appeared for the appellant and prayed for time to produce Shri Naresh Chatley in the court on the next date of hearing. The following order was passed on that date: "Affidavit has not been properly filed. We do not want to say anything at this stage. Mr. Khanna prays for some time to produce the appellant in the court on the next date of hearing. Medical certificate pursuant to our order dated 28-9-2007, be also filed along with the affidavit. Re-notify for hearing on 17-10-2007." 21. On 17-10-2007, Shri Anshuman Sood, advocate, who had appeared as one of the instructing Counsel for the appellant, filed an application stating that he had informed Shri Naresh Chatley telephonically on 1-10-2007, itself and the directions of the court had also been conveyed to him. He also sought the leave of the court to withdraw from the proceedings as Shri Chatley had not contacted him thereafter. The application was accordingly accepted and the presence of Shri Anshuman Sood, advocate, was discharged. 22. On that day, Shri Vibhu Raj Jhanji stated that he will produce Shri Chatley in the court if the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on behalf of Naresh Chatley, we recorded that the affidavit had not been filed properly and we did not want to comment on anything at that stage. However, at the request of senior counsel for the appellant who undertook to produce the appellant in the court on the next date of hearing and on the assurance that medical certificate pursuant to our order dated 28-9-2007, would be filed, the matter was adjourned to 17-10-2007. Today an application has been filed on behalf of instructing counsel Mr. Anshuman Sood, advocate, that he has informed Naresh Chatley telephonically on 1-10-2007, and conveyed the directions of the court to him. He has further stated in the application that despite that Naresh Chatley has not contacted him ever since then and has also not given any further instructions in the matter. Along with the application, an affidavit has also been filed by Mr. Anshuman Sood, advocate. In these circumstances, he has prayed that he may be discharged from appearing in the matter. Let the application presented in court be registered. We discharge Mr. Anshuman Sood, advocate for appearance on behalf of the appellant in the matter. At this stage, again Mr. Vibhu Raj J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecial attorney. 15. That, thereafter, the deponent had filed the above titled appeal challenging the correctness of the abovesaid order dated 1-3-2007, made by the hon ble company judge. The said appeal was filed through his said special attorney Shri Vibhu Raj Jhanji. 16. That deponent categorically states that he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and that above titled appeal was filed through Shri Vibhu Raj Jhanji upon his instructions and on the basis of facts and information provided by him." 28. A perusal of the above extract of the affidavit of Shri Chatley shows that the appeal was filed by Shri Vibhu Raj Jhanji and nowhere has the deponent stated in the affidavit that he is supporting the contents of the appeal by way of his own affidavit. 29. That having not been done and the power of attorney having been cancelled, the appeal does not remain alive in the eyes of law. No attempts have been made or steps have been taken by Shri Chatley to rectify the legal infirmity which leaves this court with no alternative but to conclude that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 30. That apart, we are convinced that Shri Chatley lacks bona fides as the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
