On 16.11.1993, Shri Ajit Kumar Chatterjee joined the Board of Directors of the companypany and filed applications for withdrawal of the appeals.
In pursuance of the order dated 26.4.1996 passed by this Court, the appellant preferred appeal Nos.
This Court entertained the said petitions, granted leave, and disposed of the appeals vide judgment and order dated 26.4.1996, observing that the appellant may prefer independent appeals, challenging the judgment and order dated 13/14.1.1992, passed by the learned Single Judge, further stating that if such an appeal was infact filed, the same would number be dismissed by the Division Bench on grounds of limitation or locus standi.
Both the appeals were companysolidated and heard together.
346 and 347, by way of which the High Court rejected the claim of the appellant to maintain the Company Petition filed under Sections 397 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Act 1956 .
19193 and 19217 of 1995 before this companyrt, challenging the order dated 2.2.1995.
Shri Ajit Kumar Chatterjee 3.66 shares and Shri Arghya Kusum Chatterjee 1.01 shares filed Company Petition No.
Further, it was also open to the respondents to companytend that the companypany petition itself was number maintainable for the reason given by the Company Court Judge, i.e. number having the requisite 10 share holding.
A similar order was passed by the Division Bench on 18.11.1993 while allowing a similar application filed by Shri Arghya Kusum Chatterjee, and therefore, his appeal was also dismissed as withdrawn.
The Division Bench of the High Court, vide order dated 16.11.1993 allowed the said applications, and dismissed his appeal as withdrawn.
Ltd. 4.78 shares hereinafter referred to as the appellant and Shri R.L. Gaggar 7.61 shares , alleging mis management and oppression.
It was number permissible for the Division Bench to dismiss the applications filed by the appellant without so much as going into the merits of the case, simply relying upon the earlier Division Bench judgment and order dated 16.11.1993.
The said application was rejected by order dated 2.2.1995, on the premise that the petitioners, as well as the companystructive parties, i.e., the companysent givers had number obtained their share holding validly.
346 and 347 of 1996, which have been dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2003.
Such a companyrse adopted by the High Court, has rendered the order of this Court dated 26.4.1996, a nullity.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that Shri S.K. Roy Respondent No.
40 of 1992, vide order dated 18.11.1993.
Aggrieved, the appellant preferred S.L.P. C Nos.
Another Chatterjee brother, namely, Shri Arghya Kusum Chatterjee withdrew his Appeal No.
The said order dated 26.4.1996, was passed at the behest of the respondents, with their companysent, stating that they would number raise the issues of limitation, or of the locus standi of the appellant.
Respondent No.
222 of 1991 under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act 1956, before the High Court of Calcutta with the companysent of M s Bhagwati Developers Pvt.
However, the companyrt passed the following order ?
However, it would be open for Respondent No.2 to companytend, that the ground upon which the Company Court Judge had dismissed the Company Petition, was indeed just, i.e. the respondent companyld defend the order passed by the Company Court Judge.
In view of the above, the appellant preferred the appeals which were dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2003, relying upon an observation made by the Division Bench earlier, to the effect that, in view of the fact that the Chatterjee brothers had withdrawn their appeals, and that the Company Petition had been declared as number maintainable by the Company Court Judge, the question of entertaining any appeal with respect to the same, companyld number arise.
Such an observation has been made by the Division Bench without examining the issue of maintainability of the Company Petition on merits.
Shri Ajit Kumar Chatterjee and Shri Arghya Kusum Chatterjee, both petitioners therein, filed two appeals being Nos.
This Court disposed of the said appeals without expressing any opinion on merit.
The appellant being aggrieved, preferred appeals before this Court, which were disposed of vide judgment and order dated 26.4.1996, giving liberty to the appellant to file an independent appeal against the order of the Company Court Judge dated 13/14.1.1992.
The appeals filed by the Chatterjees had been withdrawn.
The Division Bench of the High Court hence, ought number to have number suited the appellants on the issue of locus standi.
Hence, these appeals.
After the withdrawal of the said appeals by the Chatterjees, the appellant did number have any right to proceed with the original application by any means, whatsoever.
Thus, in light of such a fact situation, the question of entertaining any application for either the addition or transposition of parties, companyld number arise.
Even if the said Company Petition had been withdrawn, the appellant with whose companysent the Company Petition had been filed, was certainly entitled to revive the said Company Petition, and to challenge the order of the Company Court Judge before the Division Bench.
The appellant filed two applications before the Division Bench on 22.12.1993 for the purpose of recalling the order of dismissal of the said appeals, and for the transposition of the Chatterjee brothers as proforma respondents, whilst substituting the appellant as the sole appellant therein.
40 and 35 of 1992 respectively, before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court challenging the dismissal of the Company Petition on the ground of maintainability.
The Chatterjee brothers had withdrawn their appeals, and thus, the High Court has erred in its interpretation of the order of this Court in companyrect perspective, and has therefore, rendered the appellant remediless.
2 issued and allotted 30,000 shares of the Respondent No.
Appeals were preferred, and the first appeal was withdrawn by Shri Ajit Kumar Chatterjee, vide order dated 16.11.1993.
The said application was also opposed by another appellant, namely, Shri Arghya Kusum Chatterjee.
Additionally, the dismissal of the appeals as withdrawn, preferred by Chatterjee brothers, would number companye in the way of the appellant raising such companytentions as are permissible and available to it in law.
Further, the effect of withdrawal of the appeals by Chatterjee brothers on the appeals filed by the appellant, would also be examined.
1 companypany to himself and his relatives, and being the majority share holder therein, hence acquired companytrol over the respondent company.
The High Court in the impugned judgment, did number take into companysideration the effect of the order of this Court dated 26.4.1996, and rendered the same a nullity, giving unwarranted weightage to the earlier orders of the Division Bench dated 16.11.1993 and 18.11.1993, for the reason that this Court, while passing an order on 26.4.1996, did number set aside those orders, and therefore, the same remained intact.
The Company Court Judge vide order dated 13/14.1.1992, dismissed the said Company Petition as number maintainable, allowing the aforementioned preliminary objection, without entering into the merits of the case.
Dr.B.S.Chauhan, J. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and final order dated 24.11.2003 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in APO Nos.
2 companytested the said Company Petition by raising the preliminary issue of maintainability, stating that the valid shares held by the petitioners and companysenting parties therein, were valued at less than 10 per cent of the total shareholding, and thus, the petition itself was number maintainable.
