SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(SC) 672

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ.
SOUREN PAL AND ORS – Appellants
VERSUS
PRABHAT BOURI AND ORS – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8342 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 28249/2014)
Decided On : 26-08-2016

Importance of hearing all parties involved in a dispute before making a decision.

Headnote:

Unseated Directors - Division Bench - The Division Bench should have heard the appellants as well, having regard to the stage at which their election was set aside.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants were not heard by the Division Bench despite being unseated from the post of Directors to which they were elected in 2014.

Finding of the Court:

The Division Bench ought to have heard the appellants, and the matter was remitted to the High Court for a fresh hearing.

Issues: Appellants not being heard by the Division Bench, setting aside of their election as Directors.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of hearing the appellants and remitted the matter to the High Court for a fresh hearing.

Final Decision: The impugned judgment was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the High Court for a fresh hearing, with a request for expeditious disposal.

JUDGMENT

Kurian, J.

Leave granted.

2. The main grievance of the appellants is that they were not heard by the Division Bench while passing the impugned order despite the fact that, as per the impugned order, they have been unseated from the post of Directors, to which they were elected in the year 2014. In the view we propose to take in this case, it is not necessary to go into any other factual dispute.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Division Bench ought to have heard the appellants as well, having regard to the stage at which their election was set aside.

4. We hence set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter to the High Court. The appellants shall stand impleaded as additional respondents in First Miscellaneous Appeal(FMA) and the High Court will hear the FMA afresh. Being an election dispute of the year 2014, we request the High Court to dispose of the same expeditiously preferably within a period of three months.

5. The interim order passed by this Court earlier will continue till the First Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of.

6. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top