9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SINGH, J. CO. APPL. 579/2020 1. This is an application filed by the Petitioner seeking review and recall of the judgement dated 13.08.2020. Several grounds have been raised by the Petitioner for seeking a review and a perusal of the petition makes it evident that most of the grounds urged touch upon the merits of the allegations of perjury levelled by the Petitioner with respect to the alleged false statements made in counter affidavit on 24.02.2010 filed in CCP(Co.) No. 1/2009. The prayers made in the review petition are as follows: 1. Review and recall the judgment dated 13-8-2020. 2. Consequently, pass orders, committing the prospective accused to criminal trial for having committed the heinous offence of perjury in relation to the proceedings before the Hon ble High Court of Delhi. In the alternative to prayer (2) above : 3. Deeming it expedient to direct for conducting of criminal enquiry, direct the Ld. Registrar (Vigilance) of this Hon ble Court to conduct a Preliminary Enquiry on the lines previously directed by this Hon ble Court vide order dated 1502-2010 passed in Cr. Misc. (Co.) No. 3 of 2008, and furnish his report within 4 weeks, or wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed or not and on that basis application under Section 340 Cr. PC which is filed before the Company Law Boared would also be taken care of by the CLB itself. Learned Senior Counsels appearing for the Bakshi Group immediately agreed with the aforesaid course of action suggested by Mr. Cama. We are happy that at least there is an agreement between both the parties on the procedural course of action, to give quietus to the matters before us as well. In view of the aforesaid consensus, about the course of action to be adopted in deciding the disputes between the parties, we direct the Company Law Board to decide Company Petition No. 114 of 2007 filed before it by Ms. Sonia Khosla within a period of six months from the date of receiving a copy of this order. Since, it is the CLB which will be deciding the application under Section 340 Cr. PC filed by Ms. Sonia Khosla in the CLB, High Court need not proceed further with the Criminal Misc.(Co.). No.3 of 2008. Likewise the question whether Mr. R.K. Garg was validly inducted as a Director or not would be gone into by the CLB, the proceedings in Co. Appeal No. (SB) 23 of 2009 filed by Mr. R.K. Garg in the High Court, also become otiose. (e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 007 itself stands withdrawn on 07.02.2020 and therefore, the judgement be recalled and reviewed and the present petition be decided by this Court. 6. It was further urged that even otherwise, the present petition pertains to false statements made in an affidavit filed before this Court and thus, the same be heard on merits by this Court, without relegating the Petitioner to NCLT and orders be passed committing the prospective accused to criminal trial for having committed the heinous offence of perjury in relation to the proceedings before this Court. In the alternative, direction be issued to learned Registrar (Vigilance) to conduct Preliminary Enquiry on the lines previously directed by this Court, vide order dated 15.02.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. (Co.) No. 3 of 2008 and furnish her report within 4 weeks, or within reasonable time. 7. Mr. Jay Savla, learned Senior Advocate for the Respondents had opposed the present petition, albeit Mr. Khosla vehemently opposed his addressing the Court, on the ground that the Respondents at that stage had no locus to appear in the matter. Besides rebutting the contention of Mr. Khosla on the merits of the allegations of perjury, Mr. Savl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it afresh after correcting the same within 3 days of the withdrawal, while sustaining all status quo orders for one week from the date of allowing withdrawal./ In the alternative to (1): 2) Allow the present application ex parte, and in consequence thereof, allow the amended Company Petition as per Annexure 1 to be taken on record, to substitute the Company Petition filed on 13-08-2007. 3) If the amendment of the Company Petition be allowed ex parte, direct or hold that the approval of the filing of the amended petition does not constitute the endorsement/adjudication by this Hon ble Tribunal of the correctness of the past amendment contents, and that its approval to allow the amended petition to be taken on record in substitution of the earlier petition shall be without prejudice to the right of the Respondents to oppose the correctness/veracity of the post amendment version in due course, such as, as and when notice is issued on the Company Petition. 4) Pass ex-parte orders as prayed for above. 13. NCLT allowed prayer (1) and thus, Co. Pet. 114/2007 stood withdrawn with liberty to file the Company Petition afresh, within three days of the withdrawal. Rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
