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

2017 (5) TMI 1059

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... anuary 30, 2017 which is apparent from the record. In the facts of the case as already discussed find substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner on the strength of the Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Shalini Shyam Shetty (2010 (7) TMI 877 - SUPREME COURT ) that the impugned order dated April 11, 2017 passed by the Tribunal is vitiated by patent perversity resulting in gross and manifest failure of justice. For all the foregoing reasons, the revisional application succeeds. - CO 1480 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 17-5-2017 - Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J. Mr. P.K. Murarka Ms. Sutapa Roychowdhury for the petitioner Mr. Chotto Sud, Mr. Prabhjot Singh, Mr. Aritra Basu, Mr. Sachidanand Pandey for the opposite pa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... applications were filed by the respective parties and from time to time, various orders were passed therein, both by the Company Law Board, as well as by this Court in appeal. By an order dated December 02, 2005 the Company Law Board dismissed both the petitions C.P. No. 48 of 1996 and C.P. No. 61 of 1999. It appears that the opposite party no. 1 filed an application, being C.A. No. 378 of 2014 in C.P. No. 48 of 1996 before the Company Law Board praying for, inter alia, recalling of the orders dated September 16, 2005, December 2, 2005 and June 21, 2006 passed by the Company Law Board and certain other relief. During the pendency of the said application C.A. No. 378 of 2014, the Companies Act, 2013 came into force whereby the earlier Com .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of the present petitioner that when the order dated December 02, 2003 was not recalled and C.P. No. 48 of 1996 was not restored to its original file and the Tribunal could not have allowed any other prayer of the said application C.A. No. 378 of 2014. It was further alleged that while passing the order dated January 30, 2017 the learned Tribunal did not record the submissions and contentions advanced on behalf of the present petitioner. On these grounds, the petitioner invoked the provisions under Section 420(2) of the Act of 2013 and prayed for, recalling of the said order dated January 30, 2017 by rectifying the mistakes apparent on the face of the record. By the order dated April 11, 2017 the learned Tribunal rejected the said appli .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... so filed its written notes of argument before the Tribunal and none of the contentions raised by the petitioner by way oral argument and in the said written notes of argument was recorded by the learned Tribunal in the order dated January 30, 2017. According to him, even in the main order the learned Tribunal has not recorded that the petitioner did not file the written notes of argument or that all contentions raised by the petitioner both by way of oral argument and by written notes were considered at the time of passing of the order dated January 30, 2017. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had established the ground for invocation of the provisions in Section 420(2) of the Act of 2013 but, the impug .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d, in C.P. No. 48 of 1996 stood dismissed and therefore, the opposite party no. 1 in his application, C.A. No. 378 of 2014 first prayed for recalling of the said order dated December 02, 2005, and some other orders mentioned in his application. However, by the order dated January 30, 2017 the learned Tribunal without allowing the prayer of the opposite party no. 1 for recalling of the order dated December 02, 2005, allowed further relief in his favour in C.P. No. 48 of 1996. This is a patent mistake apparent from the record which was brought to the notice of Tribunal but, the Tribunal refused to exercise jurisdiction under Section 420(2) of the Act of 2013. In the present case, it remains undisputed by the opposite parties that while passin .....

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