9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ya, Ravi Kapur, Ms. Soorjya Ganguli, Ms. Pooja Chakrabarti, A. Mehta, P.C. Sen, Sanjiv Kr. Trivedi, Debanjan Mandal, Sandip Dasgupta, Soumya Ray Chowdhury, Sourya Sadhan Bose, Deepnath Roy Chowdhury, Satadeep Bhattacharyya, Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Abhrajit Mitra, Ms. Sudeshna Bagchi, Jishnu Chowdhury, Sarvapriya Mukherjee and Ms. Debasri Dutta for the Respondent. ORDER 1. In these two appeals, under challenge is an order of the Company Law Board, Principal Bench dated 11-7-2011. This order was passed in an interlocutory proceeding registered as C.A. No. 332 of 2011 arising out of a company petition, being C.P. No. 1 of 2010. Another application, registered as C.A. No. 338 of 2011, taken out by the Birla Corporation Limited and the appellants in ACO No. 82 of 2011 (the company), seeking dismissal of the said interlocutory application was also considered in the said order and direction for affidavits has been given in that application. The company petition was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 representing more than 10 per cent shareholders of the company alleging mismanagement and oppression in the respondent company. This petition was filed under the provisions of sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pparently a moribund Trust since 2001, a trust the main trustee of which happens to be the Chairman of the R-1 Company and another trustee being his wife and the third trustee being nobody else but his alter ego, in the facts and circumstances of this case the R-1 Company is hereby required to produce three certified copies of each document/detail/records as mentioned from ( a ) to ( e ) in para 28 of this Company Application at pages 16 17 to the Bench officer of the Principal Bench (Shri Saud Ahmad) in a sealed cover on or before 20th July, 2011. On receipt of the documents, the Bench officer shall forward one copy each to the Auditors of the R-1 Company as well as to Ernst and young, already appointed in this matter in CA 302/11, for giving their detailed comments within four weeks and placing the same before the Principal Bench before hearing and disposing of CP No. 1/2010 on merits. Looking at the details and the manner of payments of huge amounts from the A/Cs of the R-1 company as given specifically in paras 24, 25, 35, the Bench officer is also required to issue Notice alongwith a copy of this order to the trust and its trustees to furnish their justification of receipts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hile he was travelling to New Delhi from Kolkata. Upon receiving such information, he immediately rushed back to Kolkata from New Delhi Airport itself. 26. The petitioners thereafter requested Mr. Ashish Dholakia, Advocate to seek adjournment on their behalf before the Company Law Board on 11th July, 2011. 27. On 11th July, 2011, Mr. Dholakia circulated a letter and prayed for adjournment of the matter. A copy of the said letter dated 11th July, 2011 is annexed hereto and marked with the letter "F". 28. When the matter was called on for hearing, Mr. Dholakia, Advocate sought an adjournment of the hearing of the matter. Mr. Dholakia had also handed over the adjournment letter circulated by him to the Bench Officer of the Company Law Board. On the said prayer for adjournment being made, the Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6, Mr. Bimal Chatterjee submitted that no relief would be sought against the petitioners on 11th July, 2011 and therefore there should be no impediment to the hearing being continued. 29. In view of such submission, the Company Law Board directed the adjournment notice circulated by Mr. Dholakia to be kept on record. The Compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court in the case of Bashir Ahmed v. Mehmood Hussain Shah [1995] 3 SCC 529 has been referred to. In this judgment it has been held while dealing with the issue of granting adjournment on the ground of difficulty of the Counsel: "6. Therefore, the court is enjoined to satisfy itself in that behalf. If the party engages another counsel as indicated therein, then the need for further adjournment would be obviated. The words "in time" would indicate that at least reasonable time may be given when a counsel suddenly becomes unwell. There would be reasonable time for the parties to make alternative arrangement, when sufficient time intervenes between the last date of adjournment and the next date of trial. In such a case, adjournment on the ground of counsel's ill health could be refused and the party would bear the responsibility for his failure to make alternative arrangements. Take for instance, a suit was adjourned for trial for a period of one week and the counsel appears to have suddenly become in disposed which would be known to the party. Therefore, the party, in advance, has to make alternative arrangement to proceed with the trial engaging another counsel. The words "i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inh P. Gaekwad v. Shantadevi Gaekwad [2005] 57 SCL 476 and a judgment of this Court in the case of Girdhar Gopal Dalmia v. Belgachi Tea Co. Ltd. 2007 (4) CHN 155 have been relied upon. 10. It has been urged before me on behalf of the applicants ( i.e. , respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in both the appeals) that the appeal should be dismissed on the ground that there is no question of law involved in these appeals. The company has been directed to file certain documents only and the trust has been asked to justify the receipt of such funds. The jurisdiction to pass such order requiring production of documents according to the applicants flows from regulation 24 of the CLB regulation read with section 10E(4C) of the Act and Order 11 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further case of the applicants is that the issue of not granting adjournment of hearing scheduled on 11-7-2011 cannot be a question of law as it is purely within the discretion of the CLB to decide as to whether hearing of a matter shall be adjourned or not on a particular day. In any event, it has been argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants that no prejudice has been caused to any of the partie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r date for order also reflects irregularity in conduct of the proceeding by the CLB. This irregularity, if established would also constitute denial of adequate opportunity of hearing to the company as also the trust. 14. But these allegations, excepting the fact that adjournment of hearing was sought for by the trust which has not been disputed in course of hearing by the learned Counsel for the applicants, are there before me only in the form of sworn statements by the authorized representatives of the aggrieved parties. No direction for affidavits was given in respect of the stay petitions, nor such direction was prayed for. Allegations are mostly against the CLB over the manner in which the proceeding was conducted before it. The CLB is not before me as a party, as in an appeal proceeding the Court or Tribunal whose order is under challenge before the appeal Court is never impleaded as a respondent. The only testimony of its proceeding is the records of that proceeding. But these records are not before me in full except copies of two orders dated 7-7-2011 and 11-7-2011. I have reproduced the order of 11-7-2011 in the earlier part of this order. The order of 7-7-2011, the cop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
