9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the second point will be nothing but putting the impugned order to scrutiny, hence not discussed - Since the main application itself is disposed on merits, the demur application filed by the first respondent is closed X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -company again came up with another application seeking further modification of the order dated 11-9-2002, stating that it was not possible to adhere to the terms of the order dated 11-9-2002, due to financial mismatch. In pursuance thereof, this Bench extended the repayment schedule up to March, 2008 by an order dated 30-4-2004 (Annexure A6) holding that no further request for extension of time for payment to the depositors be entertained, likewise liberty was given to the applicant to take appropriate action against the company in the event of non-compliance. Whereas, this Bench, again passed an order on 25-5-2005 (Annexure A7) allowing the application filed by the first respondent-company for waiver of interest for the post-maturity interest. Again, on 28-2-2006, this Bench passed another order (Annexure A8) extending six months period up to 30-9-2006, for repayment of deposits. In the saga of orders, this Bench passed another order on February 7, 2007 (Annexure A9) extending the time schedule for repayment of deposits up to 31-12-2010, on another application moved for extension up to September, 2012 by the respondent-company. Here also this Bench repeated that no further extens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the delayed repayment results in loss of value of their maturity proceeds, which makes their actual funds almost worthless. The company is already being saddled with winding up petition multiple Debts Recovery Tribunal cases, other contingent liabilities from the statutory authorities, if all these crystallised, they will rank higher than the depositors. In view of the same, the applicant sought recall of the order dated 13-11-2009 and permission to take appropriate legal action against the company to see that the depositors realise the funds invested in the company. 8. The first respondent-company filed a demur application in this case assailing it as not maintainable. Since this Bench asked either side counsel to argue on the main application itself instead of arguing on demur application, the first respondent's counsel advanced his arguments in the main application by making a submission to this Bench to treat its demur application as reply to the main application. The applicant also filed a reply to the demur application, thereafter the first respondent-company filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the applicant in the demur application. 9. The sum and substance of the argu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the extension of orders being against public policy, having creditors initiated proceedings against the company, naturally these small depositors' claim would be subject to the realisation of the claim of the creditors. It being the position, the RBI, in order to protect the interest of the depositors, sought for recall of the order dated 13-10-2009 and permission to take action against the first respondent-company. 12. To which the first respondent's counsel opposed the same arguing that this Bench did not pass these orders by keeping this applicant in the dark, the company served notice upon the applicant as and when it moved extension application before this Bench, but this applicant never and ever raised objection for the extension. The applicant did not even move section 10F appeal against the order dated 13-11-2009. Now, this applicant cannot seek recall of the order passed by this Bench as because there is no provision under the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991, entitling this Bench to recall its own order passed in accordance with law and because there is an express provision for setting aside of the order passed by this Bench and a provision of appeal. The applican ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its judgment or order if it is obtained by fraud on the court. In the case of fraud on a party to the suit or proceedings, the court may direct the affected party to file a separate suit for setting aside the decree obtained by fraud. Inherent powers are powers which are resident in all courts, especially of superior jurisdiction . . ." (p. 163) 16. The same is reiterated in between K. Rama Rao v. M. A. Bari & B. Shyamasundara Rao, Advocates-Receivers-cum-Commissioners [2007] 6 ALT 177, wherein his Lordship T. Ch. Surya Rao held the classification of fraud as a fraud played on a party to the suit and a fraud played upon the court. In the former case, the affected party shall be directed to file a separate suit for setting aside the decree obtained by fraud and in the latter case; the court by exercising its inherent jurisdiction can recall its order. 17. The applicant counsel relied upon Rai Ram Nath Bhargava Bahadur v. Sri Swami Goverdhan Rangacharia AIR 1936 All. 97 and Sita Ram Sahu v. Kedarnaih Sahu AIR 1957 All. 825, to state that inherent powers could be invoked to the ends of justice, but having the Supreme Court held in Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate v. CIT [1977] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
