TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1956. The said proceeding was, however, transferred to the Additional Rent Controller and was, ultimately registered as ARC No. 92 of 1989 (FR). 4. On or about 6th April, 2000 Sudera Enterprises (P.) Ltd., ABL International Ltd. and Vinith (P.) Ltd. Jointly applied under sections 391(2) and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 before the Company Court for sanctioning of a scheme of amalgamation. The said proceeding was registered as Company Petition No. 317 of 2002. On 26th September, 2000 a learned Judge of this court sanctioned the scheme of arrangement/amalgamation. Under the said scheme the real estate division of Sudera Enterprises (P.) Ltd., including the major portion of the said premises No. 1, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta, has been transferred to ABL International Ltd. while the investment division and the fifth and sixth floors of the said building have been transferred to Vinith (P.) Ltd. Since certain errors had crept in the said order dated 26th September, 2000, the said petitioners filed an application for correction and modification of the said order. The Company Court allowed the said prayers on 26th March, 2001. 5. Since ARC Case No. 92 of 1989 (FR) was pend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idency Small Causes Court at Calcutta dismissed the said appeal holding, inter alia, that the same was not maintainable. 11. Being aggrieved ABL International (P.) Ltd. moved this court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was registered as Civil Order No. 694 of 2002. 12. By judgment and order dated 17th April, 2002 Naryanan Chandra Sil, J, set aside the order dated 14th March, 2002 and remanded the appeal to the court of learned Chief Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta for a fresh findings on the materials on record. It was, however observed that the hearing of the appeal before the learned Chief Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court would remain stayed till the passing of the final order by the Apex Court in connection with the applications for amendment of the cause title and clarification/modification of the orders dated 25th September, 2002 and 12th March, 2001 and for permission to submit additional documents being IA Nos. 5 to 14 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5484 to 5485 of 2000. However, the learned Chief Judge was directed to proceed with the other connected matters including the application for stay. 13. There is another fact of the li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een registered as Civil Appeal Nos. 5484-5485 of 2002 in the Apex Court. 19. By order dated 16th February, 2001 the Apex Court, inter alia, directed the Rent Controller to decide the applications for fixation of fair rent expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of the said order. The learned advocates appearing for the parties undertook before the Apex Court that they would co-operate with the Rent Controller and would not take unnecessary adjournment. 20. Sudera Enterprises (P.) Ltd. filed applications in connection with the said Civil Appeal Nos. 5484-5485 of 2002 for amendment of the cause title and clarification/modification of the orders dated 25th September, 2000 and 12th March, 2001 and for permission to submit additional documents. Two other applications have been filed for directions and for discharge of the learned receiver. 21. By order dated 24th August, 2001 the Apex Court fixed the hearing of the applications on 21st September, 2001 and directed the parties to maintain status quo in the meantime and the learned receiver was directed not to pay the amount received by him towards the rents from the tenants to Sudera Enterprises (P.) Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant in the said appeal. 26. Being aggrieved the petitioner has come up with this application. 27. Mr. Jayanta Mitra learned senior advocate, appearing for the petitioner, argued that it was not permissible on the part of the ABL International Ltd. to prefer the appeal against the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller as ABL International was not a party in the proceeding before the Additional Rent Controller. It has submitted that no leave was obtained by the said ABL International Ltd. to prefer the said appeal as person aggrieved. Mr. Mitra has drawn my attention, specifically, to the orders passed by the Apex Court in connection with the applications filed by the Sudera Enterprises (P.) Ltd. for amendment of the cause title and clarification/modifications of orders dated 25th September, 2000 and 12th March, 2001 and submitted that the Apex Court directed the parties to maintain status quo and as such till the disposal of the said applications, the hearing of the appeal should remain stayed. My attention has, also, been drawn to the order passed by N.C. Sil, J., dated 17th April, 2002 where it has been directed that the hearing of the appeal would remain stayed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany before the Additional Rent Controller. The transferor-company has been amalgamated with the transferee-company and as such the transferee-company is entitled to pursue the remedy in appeal. 30. Moreover, the petitioner is only a tenant and she has no right to say no to the amalgamation inasmuch as she is entitled only to the protections under the existing rent restrictions Act. It is settled law the order of amalgamation passed by the Company Court is a judgment in rem and as such the order of amalgamation is binding on the tenant. 31. The Apex Court in the order dated 24th August, 2001, while considering the applications filed by the transferor-company for amendment of the cause title and clarifications/modifications of the orders dated 25th September, 2000 and 12th March, 2001 and for permission to submit additional documents, inter alia, directed the parties to maintain status quo . The said order of status quo was subsisting on the date when N.C. Sil, J. passed the order dated 17th April, 2002. N.C. Sil, J. has no option, but to direct that the hearing of the appeal would remain stayed till the passing of the final order by the Apex Court. 32. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
