9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the appeal. Company Appeal No. 3 of 2002 was filed by the appellant, the legal representative of an ex-Director of M/s. Vidarbha Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, a company that went into liquidation and which was ordered to be wound up in Company Petition No. 7 of 1985 by order dated 9-11-1998. Though that appeal was against the order dated 16-8-2002 in Company Application No. 56 of 2001, the appellant attempted to challenge the earlier orders dated 7-9-2001 and 22-7-1999, passed during the winding up proceedings. By the order dated 7-9-2001, the Company Judge had dismissed the application No. 40 of 1999 filed by the appellant for setting aside the order dated 22-7-1999 passed by him in a misfeasance application, holding that all the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication for review was dismissed. It is that order that is challenged in this appeal. 3. For the purpose of this case, we do not think it necessary to consider the question whether the appeal filed before the Division Bench under section 483 of the Companies Act against an order refusing to review the orders on the Misfeasance Application was maintainable, the wide words of section 483 notwithstanding (an order rejecting an application for review is not appealable even under the Code of Civil Procedure either under Order XLIII Rule 1(w) or Order XLVII Rule 7). We proceed on the assumption that the appeal was maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order of the Division Bench sought to be reviewed, proceeded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led upon to exercise its review jurisdiction was bound to consider the reviewability or correctness of all the prior orders including the order on the review petition. 5. While dismissing the petition for review of the order dated 7-9-2001, on 16-8-2002, the Company Judge found on the basis of the material on record of Company Application No. 40 of 1999 and the contentions sought to be raised by the appellant that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 7-9-2001. Therefore, what was involved in Company Appeal No. 3 of 2002 was only the correct- ness of that order of the Company Judge and the Division Bench by its judgment dated 19-9-2002, found no reason to interfere. The review was sought by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is also seen that instead of taking appropriate steps at appropriate times, the appellant had indulged in initiating proceedings one after another which were all found to be untenable and without merit. In the circumstances, one can only say that the appellant has to thank himself for the situation he finds himself in, even if there is any merit in his claims. The High Court cannot be faulted for refusing to review its order dismis-sing the Company Appeal, or in dismissing the Company Appeal itself.
7. Thus, we are satisfied that no ground is made out for interference with the order of the High Court challenged in this appeal. The order of the High Court is confirmed and this appeal is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
