Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (10) TMI 239

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ioners may, in accordance with law, pursue their caveat application, or another application to intervene in the matter, before the CLB itself which is free to pass appropriate orders. Nothing stated in this order would be construed as an expression of the merits as to whether the petitioners had lodged the caveat, as they allege, and whether they had caveatable rights, which can be recognized and whether they can be heard in the matter in which they claim to be interested - Decided against petitioner. - W. P. (C) 5889/2013, C.M. 12981/2013 (for ad-interim orders), 12982/2013 (for ad-interim orders), 12983/2013 (for acceptance of advance service), 12984/2013 (for exemption), 12985/2013 (seeking time to pay Court Fees), 13484/2013 (for accep .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o this, it is argued that a Judicial Member of the CLB, who is also arrayed as a respondent in his personal capacity in the present writ petition, noted in open court that the petition would not be served upon the caveators. This, contend the caveator petitioners, amounted to an impermissible review of the earlier decision of the Bench Officer to register the caveat, which carried with it the requirement that the petition be served (upon the caveator). The petitioners argue that this amounted to the orders of the CLB being a nullity and consequently without force of law. It was specifically urged that upon the caveat being filed on 9.9.2013, the Bench Officer indicated acceptance; the Chairman could not have then assigned the matter to a CL .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 32(2). Now, there is no specific provision with regard to applicability of Section 148A of the CPC. Therefore, the petitioners contend that the CLB should be directed to frame regulations in that regard. A look at the 1991 Regulations would clarify that they cater to a specific class of proceedings; there is no indication of the applicability of provisions pertaining to caveats. Yet, Regulation 44 entitles the Bench of the CLB, in the given facts of any particular case, to make such orders as it may deem expedient to secure the ends of justice: 44. Saving of inherent power of the Bench. Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Bench to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the effect of an indirect legislation as if it were by a side wind. The powers of a Civil Court are too sacrosanct to be allowed to be diluted or to be curtailed by a mere remote implication. I, therefore, hold that as there is no specific provision declaring any action taken by the Court contrary to its mandatory duty under Sub-section (3) to give a notice would be void, the order passed by the Court below on 30-10-1980 is not a nullity. In other words, il appears to me that the mere lodgement of a caveat would not deprive the Court of its power to pass an order even if the caveator was not informed of the dale of hearing of the matter. As the lodgement of a caveat is merely a right to be informed of the hearing date and it has no effec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e made by CLB itself, though paragraphs 4-14 of the present petition attempt to make this case out before this court. As a specialized body, the CLB is seized of, and accordingly, exercising jurisdiction over, the Vikram Bakshi matter. In such case, it would be inappropriate for this court to consider the Petitioners interest, if any, in the matter that would justify a caveat or a right to be heard. Indeed, the writ petitioners in this case also have an alternate remedy available under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 for any grievances that may arise from the orders of the CLB. In such a case, to bypass the relevant statutory framework and engage this Court s writ jurisdiction would be incorrect. 10. This Court observes with some .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates