TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture of giving certain directions to the Receiver/Special Officer and injunction in connection therewith. Although various reliefs were sought for in the application but from the advancement of the argument it appears that the application is basically made for recalling and setting aside of the order passed by this Court on 26th March. 1998 in G.A. No. 3109 of 1997 at the instance of all contesting parties. 2. One of such contesting parties was Sri Bijay Kumar Agarwal, happened or happens to be the Director of this applicant company. 3. This Court had come to the ultimate finding on 26th March, 1998 upon hearing the parties on numerous occasions and after passing several interim orders which are all available in the record. Even th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt company about the G.A. No. 3109 of 1997 and the order passed on 26th March, 1998 ultimately came to know from an employee of M/s. Ratan Export Industries Ltd. having registered office at New Delhi whose name cannot be disclosed for fear or reprisal. Said employee of the above company provided with the pleadings and order in the G.A. No. 3109 of 1997 to them. 9. The respondents jointly contended that the order passed on 26th March, 1998 is not the original order for sale hut order of implementation of order for sale originally passed by a Single Bench of this Court on 17th August, 1993 at the instance of this applicant company being M/s. Murphy Food Specialities (Pvt.) Ltd. itself in an application in the matter between Bijoy Kumar A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or recalling and setting aside order is made by one Sabyasachi Mukherjee claiming to be Director/Principal Officer of the applicant company but without any affidavit of competency. 14. However, 1 am briefly on the point as to whether appropriate party represented the case and whether the order passed caused prejudice to any alleged non-appearing party or not. 15. No doubt Sri Bijoy Kumar Agarwal, the keyman was always present, irrespective of his resignation from the Directorship of the Company on 2nd April, 1992 and giving up shareholding of the Company, either in the Court, or in other sphere in connection with the matter. Therefore it cannot be said that the case was unrepresented. 16. The petitioner joined issue therein by sayi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is made to recall such order; d) Even, in merit, I found that in spite of several notices of the Joint Receivers said Sri Bijoy Kumar Agarwal did not attend the meeting tor the purpose of making inventory of the goods but ultimately became part of the order of the Court for implementation of sale which now cannot be disputed through the Company. If the company has any grievance of damages as against the company having warehouse, the same is a different cause of action altogether and cannot find place over and above the balance of convenience already drawn in favour of the company having warehouse in this respect in the earlier occasion: e) The natural justice is not one way traffic. Therefore situation of each case has to be observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the person behind it. In support of the contention Mr. Sen cited a judgment. Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escort Limited and relied upon head Note 'F' therein to establish their stand on the point of lifting of corporate veil. I found from the head note 'F' that the Supreme Court observed that generally and broadly speaking, it may be said that the corporate veil may be lifted where a statute itself contemplates lifting the veil, or fraud or improper conduct is intended to be prevented, or a taxing statute or a beneficent statute is sought to be evaded or where associated companies are inextricably connected as to be, in reality, part of one concern. It is neither necessary nor desirable to enumerate the classes of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|