9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0, should not be allowed to suffer, because of some acts of omission and commission on the part of the servants of the appellant. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the learned Single Judge, who will consider the representation, which was filed and was placed on the record of the Company Petition, after the passing of the impugned order, and decide the petition afresh, after hearing all the parties and taking into consideration the aforesaid representation. - COMPANY APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2009 - - - Dated:- 14-9-2010 - SURJIT SINGH AND SURINDER SINGH, JJ. Harin P. Raval and M.A. Khan for the Appellant. P.K. Singh, Vijay Aggarwal, B.C. Negi, Aman Sood, Rakesh Mukhija, Sunil Moha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portunities were granted to the Central Government to make representation, but it failed to file the same. Learned Single Judge, thereafter, heard the matter and passed the impugned order, approving the arrangement. 7. Main grievance of the appellant-Central Government is that it ought to have been afforded one more opportunity to file representation. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India, who is representing the appellant (Central Government) submits that on 4-8-2009, when the impugned order was passed, representation of the appellant was ready. He submits that the representation had been dispatched from Delhi, through a Special Messenger, but the Messenger reached the Court at Shimla at 4.10 p.m. and by that time the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing order on the application for approval of arrangement. Central Government may not be party to the Company Petition, but if it feels aggrieved by the order, rejecting its representation or shutting its right to make representation, it has the right to file appeal. Law is well settled on this aspect of the matter. Reference in this regard may be made to a Division Bench judgment of Bombay High Court in SEBI v. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. [2003] 113 Comp. Cas. 273 1 , and Northern Plastics Ltd. v. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1997] 4 SCC 452. 9. Petition for approving the arrangement was filed in a pending Company Case of 2004, on 10th December, 2008. Learned counsel for the Central Government appeared in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
