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

2014 Supreme(Guj) 941

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
C.L SONI, J.
Girish Bhagwatprasad HUF - Petitioner
Versus
Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. (IDBI Ltd.) - Respondent
Misc. Civil Application No. 187 of 2012, Co. Application No. 414 of 2007 and Co. Petition No. 21 of 1984
Decided on : 28-01-2014.

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ashok L. Patel, Pavan, S. Godiawala and Sangeeta, N. Pahwa, Advocates.
For the Respondent:S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate, A.S. Vakil, B.H. Bhagat, Amee Yajnik, Advocate.

Headnote:

Company (Court) Rules, 1959 - Rule 9 - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 176 - Winding up of Company - Power of Court to exercise its inherent powers to do complete justice - Respondent No. 2 submitted that there is total lack of bonafide on the part of the applicants in moving the present application is moved to grab more money from the respondent No. 2 even after getting huge assistance from respondent No. 2 for release of the immovable properties of the applicants worth crore of rupees given in security against liability to be discharged as guarantors towards the dues of the company - Held, Company Court has inherent powers under Rule 9 of the Rules to pass necessary orders to do complete justice to the parties by recalling its order if it finds that there was total lack of jurisdiction to deal with particular application whereon the order was made and it was not properly apprised of the correct facts or correct position of law by party in whose favour the order is passed. Present is not the case where the applicants are seeking review under the guise of seeking modification/clarification or recalling of the order. The applicants have come with clear case that they are equity shareholders of the company under liquidation which were pledged by them with IDBI by way of security for the loan advanced by the IDBI to the company. In respect of such shares, if the IDBI wanted to get its action of assigning the rights, title and interest therein ratified with the help of the Court, the applicants were the first affected persons in whose absence no order affecting their rights could have been passed.

- Petition allowed

JUDGMENT :

C.L Soni, J.

This application is preferred with following prayers in para 26:-

(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to review/recall the oral order dated 25.8.2008 made by this Hon'ble Court in Company Application No. 414 of 2007 and be pleased to pass appropriate orders, in the interest of justice and equity;

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to declare the Deed of Assignment dated 25.8.2007 as void in so far as it provides for transfer of shares of applicants to Respondent No. 2, in the interest of justice;

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to declare the transfer of the shares of Applicants as void ab initio;

(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 and/or respondent No. 3 to re-transfer the shares in favour of Applicants with all rights attached thereto;

(E) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 to give effect to the transfer of the shares that may be executed by Respondent No. 2 and/or respondent No. 3 in favour of Applicants as stated above;

(F) Your Lordships may be pleased to award the cost of this application;

(G) Your Lordships may be pleased to condone the delay of 1484 days;

(H) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be thought fit in the circumstances;

Subsequently, as per the affidavit filed on behalf of applicant No. 1, the applicants sought permission to omit word "review" wherever mentioned in the application and also to delete prayer for condonation of delay.

2. The above-said request was accepted by the Court vide order dated 21.2.2013 after recording no objection of the learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 without prejudice to its right to raise contention as regards limitation.

3. Learned advocate Mr. A.L. Shah appearing with Mr. Pavan S. Godiawala and Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa for the applicants declared that they are restricting the application for prayer of recalling of the oral order dated 25.8.2008 passed by the Court in Company Application No. 414 of 2007 and are not pressing the remaining prayers.

4. It is the case of the applicants that they were equity shareholders of Prasad Mill Company Ltd. (company under liquidation) and they pledged their shares with the respondent No. 1-Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) to secure loan advanced by IDBI to the company. The company was ordered to be wound up by order dated 05.05.1989 passed in Company Petition No. 21 of 1984 and the Official Liquidator attached with the Court was appointed as Liquidator of the company. The IDBI filed Civil Suit No. 4958 of 1991 against the company and its sureties, which, thereafter, was transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal, where it was registered as Transfer Application No. 482 of 1995, wherein the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal passed order dated 28.12.2006 for issuing recovery certificate to recover an amount of Rs.36,49,872/-. The recovery officer registered the Proceeding No. 418 of 2006 to recover the aforesaid amount. The IDBI could recover an amount of Rs.19 lacs from the sale proceeds of the assets of the company and thereafter, it executed the deed of assignment dated 25.8.2007 in favour of respondent No. 2 for consideration of Rs.15 lacs. It is further case of the applicants that the IDBI then moved an Application No. 414 of 2007 before learned Company Judge with following prayers:-

(A) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to ratify the action of the applicant in assigning all rights, title and interest and underlying securities of Prasad Mills Ltd. (in Liquidation) in favour of respondent No. 2-Riverfront Properties Pvt. Ltd.;

(B) That, in terms of section 536 of the Companies Act, 1956, while considering the assignment to respondent No. 2-Riverfront Properties Pvt. Ltd., this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to consider the transfer of all the rights, title, interest and benefits of the applicant bank in respect of its claim against the Company together with all its security interest therein including the pledge of 3669 f

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

SupremeToday

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