Ai Champdany Industries Limited vs Duncan International (I) Limited

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(Cal) 136

High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
J.N. PATEL & SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI
Ai Champdany Industries Limited
Versus
Duncan International (I) Limited & Others
A.P.D. No. 406 of 2010 C.S. No.223 of 2008, A.P.D. No. 407 of 2010, C.S. No. 220 of 2008, A.P.D. No. 410 of 2010, C.S. No.221 of 2008, A.P.D. No. 409 of 2010, C.S. No.225 of 2008, A.P.D. No. 408 of 2010, C.S. No.222 of 2008, A.P.D. No. 411 of 2010 C.S. No.224 of 2008
Decided On : 16-02-2012

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:S.B. Mookherjee, Senior Advocate, Jishnu Saha, Sabyasachi Chowdhury, D. Basak, Abhijit Guha Roy, S. Singhvi, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Ranjan Deb, Ms. Manju Bhutoria, Advocates.

Headnote:
ADMISSION - SCHEME - SICK INDUSTRIAL COMPANY (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) ACT, 1985 (SICA) - SECTION 18(8) - SUMMARY JUDGMENT - WINDING UP - CHAPTER XIIIA OF THE ORIGINAL SIDE RULES OF THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA - COMPANIES ACT, 1956 - SECTION 433 - SECTION 434 - SECTION 439 - ORDER 37, C.P.C. - The Court held that the admission on which reliance is placed by the plaintiffs/respondents is not an unequivocal admission and the learned Single Judge ought to have exercised the discretion by granting leave to the defendant. Hence, the judgment and order in all the six suits are quashed and set aside and leave is granted to the appellants/defendants to defend.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs/respondents filed six suits claiming a decree for the amounts due to them from the defendant company on the basis of an order passed by the BIFR and AAIFR in the matter of sanctioning of a rehabilitation claim regarding Anglo India Jute Mills Ltd. (AIJML), the sick industrial company. The appellant/defendant disputed the claim and pleaded that the scheme contained reciprocal arrangement and plaintiffs/respondents had failed to perform their part of the obligation such as transfer of immovable property at 8/7, Woodland Flat, Alipore Road, Calcutta and contended that the plaintiffs/respondents having failed to fulfil the conditions could not seek a judgment and decree in the matter without giving an opportunity to the appellant/defendant to contest the suit.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the admission on which reliance is placed by the plaintiffs/respondents is not an unequivocal admission and the learned Single Judge ought to have exercised the discretion by granting leave to the defendant.
Issues: Whether the appellant/defendant is entitled for leave to defend.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the principles laid down in Sm. Kiranmoyee Dassi vs. Dr. J. Chatterjee (1945) 49 Cal WN 246 and Mechalec Engineering and Manufacturers Ltd. Vs. M/s. Equipment Corporation (AIR 1977 SC 577) to hold that the admission on which reliance is placed by the plaintiffs/respondents is not an unequivocal admission and the learned Single Judge ought to have exercised the discretion by granting leave to the defendant.
Final Decision: The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

Judgment :-

J.N. Patel, C.J.

All these appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 23.8.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.S. No.220 of 2008, C.S. No.221 of 2008, C.S. No.222 of 2008, C.S. No.223 of 2008, C.S. No.224 of 2008 and C.S. No.225 of 2008.

As facts and issues arising in all these suits are common, the appeals preferred by the appellant/original defendant and the cross objection filed by the respondent/original plaintiff are being disposed of by this common judgment & order.

The suit (C.S.220 of 2008) has been filed by the plaintiff’s company on October 31, 2008 in order to claim the following reliefs :

a) Decree for Rs. 32,53,750/- against the defendant as claimed in paragraph 32 herein;

b) Interim interest upon judgment @15% per annum;

c) Receiver;

d) Injunction;

e) Attachment;

f) Costs;

g) Such other and/or further relief or reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper.

The suit (C.S.221 of 2008) has been filed by the plaintiff’s company on October 31, 2008 in order to claim the following reliefs :

a) Decree for Rs. 2,22,62,500/- against the defendant as claimed in paragraph 32 herein;

b) Interim interest upon judgment @15% per annum;

c) Receiver;

d) Injunction;

e) Attachment;

f) Costs;

g) Such other and/or further relief or reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper.

The suit (C.S.222 of 2008) has been filed by the plaintiff’s company on October 31, 2008 in order to claim the following reliefs :

a) Decree for Rs. 14,40,884/- against the defendant as claimed in paragraph 32 herein;

b) Interim interest upon judgment @15% per annum;

c) Receiver;

d) Injunction;

e) Attachment;

f) Costs;

g) Such other and/or further relief or reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper.

The suit (C.S.223 of 2008) has been filed by the plaintiff’s company in order to claim the following reliefs :

a) Decree for Rs. 2,48,61,027/- against the defendant as claimed in paragraph 33 herein;

b) Interim interest upon judgment @15% per annum;

c) Receiver;

d) Injunction;

e) Attachment;

f) Costs;

g) Such other and/or further relief or reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper.

The suit (C.S.224 of 2008) has been filed by the plaintiff’s company on October 31, 2008 in order to claim the following reliefs :

a) Decree for Rs. 1,41,61,130/- against the defendant as claimed in paragraph 32 herein;

b) Interim interest upon judgment @15% per annum;

c) Receiver;

d) Injunction;

e) Attachment;

f) Costs;

g) Such other and/or further relief or reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper.

The suit (C.S.225 of 2008) has been filed by the plaintiff’s company on October 31, 2008 in order to claim the following reliefs :

a) Decree for Rs. 41,17,172/- against the defendant as claimed in paragraph 32 herein;

b) Interim interest upon judgment @15% per annum;

c) Receiver;

d) Injunction;

e) Attachment;

f) Costs;

g) Such other and/or further relief or reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper.

It was the case of the plaintiff that the claims made in all suits fell within the term of Rule 1 Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules of the High Court at Calcutta and there was no defence to the claim of the plaintiff and, therefore, final judgment for the one claimed together with interest and cost might be passed. It was contended that the amounts claimed in the suits virtually stood admitted by the defendants and they were stopped from denying the claim of the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to claim made in the master summons.

The facts on the basis of which the respondents/original plaintiffs have filed all the suits are common.

It is the case that plaintiffs that they are public limited companies within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at “Duncan House”, 31, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata-700001.

On or about May 19, 2005 the name of Anglo India Jute Mills Co. Ltd. Was changed to the present name of the defendant being AI Champdany Industries Ltd. having its registered office at 25, Princep Street

Click Here to Read the rest of this document