The order dated 16.8.2002 was one by which the Company Judge rejected an application for review filed by the petitioner seeking a review of the order passed on 7.9.2001.
Though that appeal was against the order dated 16.8.2002 in Company Application No.
This finding by the Company Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench in its order dated 19.9.2002.
Company Appeal No.
The appellant then filed a petition to review the judgment in Company Appeal No.
It was this order that was dealt with in Company Appeal No.
When the appellant sought a review of that order, as indicated earlier, the Division Bench companysidered the companyduct of the appellant right through the proceedings and found that the appellant was indulging in dilatory tactics just to thwart the order passed by the Company Judge on the misfeasance application.
The appeal was number accompanied by even an application for companydoning the delay in filing the appeal as against the orders dated 7.9.2001 and 22.7.1999even though the challenges to them were clearly barred by limitation.
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 Directors of the Company were jointly and severally liable under Section 543 1 a of the Companies Act to pay to the Company an amount of Rs.6,29,220/ with interest thereon at the rate of 18 per annum with effect from 6.10.1996 along with the companyts of the proceedings.
The application for review was thus dismissed on 16.8.2002.
Therefore, what was involved in Company Appeal No.
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.
The Division Bench of the High Court, therefore, ordered on 19.9.2002 that the orders passed by the Company Judge on 7.9.2001 and 22.7.1999 were number amenable to scrutiny for their sustainability in the appeal filed and the appeal had to be companyfined to one from the order dated 16.8.2002.
3 of 2002 was filed by the appellant, the legal representative of an ex Director of M s Vidarbha Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, a companypany that went into liquidation and which was ordered to be wound up in Company Petition No.
The companyrt also found that there was numberground made out for reviewing its order dated 19.9.2002.
The order dated 22.7.1999 that was sought to be challenged was the order on the misfeasance application.
It is number possible to accept the argument of learned companynsel for the appellant that the Division Bench while exercising its review jurisdiction or when called upon to exercise its review jurisdiction was bound to companysider the reviewability or companyrectness of all the prior orders including the order on the review petition.
The appeal was in time only as regards the order dated 16.8.2002 refusing to review the earlier orders in misfeasance proceedings passed by the Company Judge.
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.
Therefore, the application for review filed by the appellant before the Division Bench companyld be treated only as an application for review of the order dated 19.9.2002 refusing to interfere with the order dated 16.8.2002.
40 of 1999 and the companytentions sought to be raised by the appellant that there was numbererror apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 7.9.2001.
3 of 2002.
Thereafter, the appeal was dismissed holding that the Company Judge was justified in refusing to review the orders passed in the Misfeasance Application.
For the purpose of this case, we do number think it necessary to companysider 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 numberwithstanding an order rejecting an application for review is number appealable even under the Code of Civil Procedure either under Order XLIII Rule 1 w or Order XLVII Rule 7 .
By the order dated 7.9.2001, the Company Judge had dismissed the application No.
By order dated 18.7.2003, the application for review was dismissed.
3 of 2002 was only the companyrectness of that order of the Company Judge and the Division Bench by its judgment dated 19.9.2002, found numberreason to interfere.
It is that order that is challenged in this appeal.
The order specified that the appeal was against the order dated 16.8.2002.
23706 OF 2003 K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. Leave granted.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CIVIL NO.
3 of 2002 by the Division Bench in its order which was sought to be reviewed.
7 of 1985 by order dated 9.11.1998.
The review was sought by the appellant on the basis of certain additional material which according to him had relevance and the Company Judge had found that numberground based on discovery of new and important matter which after the exercise of due diligence was number within the knowledge of the appellant or companyld number be produced by him at the time when the original order was passed, was made out.
The order dated 16.8.2002 was that the Petition for review filed by the appellant seeking a review of the order dated 7.9.2001 passed in Company Application No.
This appeal, as can be seen from paragraph 1 of the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal, challenges the order of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench dated 18.7.2003 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court refused to review its judgment in Company Appeal No.
3 of 2002 dated 19.9.2002 dismissing the appeal.
