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

1995 Supreme(Del) 756

High Court Of Delhi
KULVIR CHANDHOKE - Appellant
Versus
EASTERN LINKERS PRIVATE LIMITED.(IN LIQUIDATION) - Respondent
Company 501 of 1986
Decided On : 09/28/1995

Advocates Appeared:
A.N.PAREKH, CHETAN SHARMA, PUNAM

Headnote:Companies Act, 1956 - Section 446 r/w 454 — Liquidation proceedings — Practice and procedure — Application filed by a share holder whereby an order which became final and upheld by the Supreme Court, sought to be reopened — Abuse of the process of the Court — Tendency of litigants not to accept the judgment and order or the Supreme Court in its true spirit — Such tendency must be curbed by the Court — Application dismissed.

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

( 1 ) A company application No. 501/86 in Company Petition No. 42/85, eastern Linkers Private Limited Company in liquidation has been filed. Kulveer Chandhoke is the applicant and the Official Liquidator is the respondent. Kulveer Chandhoke is respondent No. 6 in CP 42/85. In this application it is submitted by the applicant that he is the owner of four-fully paid up preference shares of the face value of Rs. 2,000 each of M/s Eastern Linkers Pvt. Limited (In liquidation) bearing No. 29 to 32.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the applicant, the shares were allotted to him on 1. 11. 1951 and share scrips are in his possession and he has filed the photo copies of the same. He has further mentioned that he has not transferred the shares to any one and these shares are continued to be his property.

( 3 ) IT is submitted in the application that in May, 1960 two individual shareholders namely D. N. Sodhi and S. L. Bali developed personal differences and their personal differences led to filing of winding up petition No. 39/73 by D. N. Sodhi. The Court after hearing the parties ordered that the company be wound up under the just an equitable clause. Against that order an appeal was preferred before the Division Bench and the same was dismissed with a reasoned judgment. A Special Leave Petition was preferred in the Supreme Court of India against the judgement of the Division Bench which was also dismissed on 5. 3. 1984.

( 4 ) IT is submitted by the applicant that he was not a party to any of these proceedings and consequently not bound by the orders passed by different courts.

( 5 ) THE applicant also mentioned that he was approached by Dr. P. S. Chhabra as well as his cousin Jaidev Chandhoke who were interested in buying applicant s shares for a better price and the applicant is equally keen to sell his shares.

HE further submitted that since the winding up proceedings are pending and, the transfer of shares is not possible because they cannot be registered except with the permission of the Court. Therefore, he is seeking permission of the Court for the grant of permission to sell his- fully paid up shares to Jaidev Chandhoke. He further submitted that the sale of shares by him to Jaidev Chandhoke will not in any way create any impediment in the winding up of the company. The applicant has also prayed that the Official Liquidator be directed to register the shares transfered on behalf of the company. The Court issued notice on the application and a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 to 4, 7 and 8.

( 6 ) IN the reply the non-applicants have submitted that the true position is that the applicant Kulveer Chandhoke was aware of all these proceedings and he in fact was a party in Company Petition No. 39/73.

( 7 ) THIS Court in its order dated 2. 2. 1978 in C. P. 39/73 directed the counsel for the petitioner to file a list and Form No. 10 giving a list of persons supporting or opposing the winding up petition. This order was passed after the citation was published in the newspapers.

( 8 ) ON 27. 1. 1978 Kulveer Chandhoke wrote to the counsel for the petitioner in C. P. 39/73 as he intended to oppose the winding up petition and he was the holder of the four cummulative preferential shares of the Company.

( 9 ) FORM No. 10 was filed in Court on 13-3-1978 in which Kulveer Chandhoke also appeared in the list of persons opposing the winding up petition. The respondent has annexed Form No. 10 along with his reply. Form No. 10 indicates the name of Kulveer Chandhoke, F-68, Bhagat Singh Market, in the category of persons who had joined in the category of people opposing the winding up petition.

( 10 ) IT is also submitted that reply to C. P. 39/73 was filed on 12. 4. 1978 on behalf of the petitioner including the present applicant, Kulveer Chandhoke. P. N. Khanna, J. in his judgement dated 23. 5. 1972 in C. P. 32/75 had decided the ownership of the shares. This judgment was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court and




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top