9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew. The company court while exercising jurisdiction under the Companies Act does not cease to be civil court. The rules framed under the Companies Act, will be applicable to company proceedings. In the absence of any specific rule, procedure provided under the Code of Civil Procedure would be applicable. In the instant case, Order 47 is power of the Civil Court and in those circumstances, the High Court functioning as a company court, but nonetheless a Civil Court has the power of review. 2. The only question which remains to be answered is whether the power of review can be exercised at the instance of the party who was not a party to the proceedings. This is the argument which learned counsel for the company has raised considering langu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there is nothing in section 96 which lays down that it is only party to the suit who can file appeal. Section 96 of the C.P.C. does not use the expression other person or party. It is in that context that the court held that even a person who is not party to the proceeding can prefer an appeal. The learned counsel on behalf of the company relied on the Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Singh v. Firm Sheo Parshad Giani Ram AIR 1978 Delhi 122 which has taken a view that it is only a party to the lis who can prefer review and other person adversely affected can take such steps which may be available to them in law to protect their rights as and when the adverse order or decree is sought to be enforced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of limitation. The use of expression "prescribed period of limitation" will be subject to section 5 of the Limitation Act. Considering the two judgments of the Apex Court and Division Bench of this court in the case of Fakir Mohamed Abdul Razak (supra), it is clear that review at the instance of a person aggrieved and filed within the period of limitation would lie and to that extent the judgment Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Singh (supra) does not correctly lay down the law. In respect of a company petition before the company court, therefore, clearly a review petition would lie at the instance of a party aggrieved. 5. Petitioner before this court by the present review application seeks review of the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecord to show when the demand was made or when the municipal taxes were to be paid. It is no doubt true that apart from rent, petitioner is entitled to claim taxes. However, what is important to bear in mind is that whether on the date when the petition was filed, the company was indebted to the petitioners. There is no material before this court to so hold. Under section 101 before giving effect to a resolution of the company for reduction of share capital, the court in those situations which would result in diminution of liability in respect of unpaid share capital or payment to any share holders of any paid up share capital has to issue notice to the parties set out therein. That is not the case here. However, the court can still direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
