AVINASH HANSRAJ GAJBHIYE versus OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, M/S. V. PHARMA. P. LTD.

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 358 · Decided: 17-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A
A VINASH HANSRAJ GAJBHIYE
v.
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, M/S. V. PHARMA. P. LTD.
FEBRUARY 17, 2006
B
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.]
Companies Act, 1956-Section 483:
Company-Liquidation-Misfeasance proceedings-Company Judge
C holding Directors liable to pay certain amount with interest thereon-Review
petitions against-Dismissed by tlie company judge as also by the Division
Bench of High Court-On appeal, Held: High Court, in exercise of its review
jurisdiction, not bound to consider the correctness of prior orders-Basis of
review was certain additional material which after due diligence was not
D within the knowledge of 1he applicant/not produced by him when the order
was passed-Division Bel'lch of the High Court noticed the conduct of the
applicant and found him indulging in dilatory tactics to thwart the order
passed by the Company Judge-Hence, both the Division Bench and the Single
Judge of the High Court justified in dismissing the Review Petitions as initiation
of proceedings by the applicants found to be untenable and without merit.
E
The respondent-firm went into liquidation, and was ordered to be
would up. In a misfeasance proceedings, the Company Judge held all the
ex-Directors of the Company jointly and severally liable to pay certain
amount with interest thereon. Appellant, legal representatives of the
Directors, filed review pdition, which was dismissed by the Company
F Judge. Appeals against the order was dismissed by the Division Bench of
the High Court. Hence the present appeal.
Dismissing the appE~al, the Court
HELD:l.1. The Division Bench of the High Court while exercising
G its review jurisdiction or when called upon to exe.rcise its review
jurisdiction was not bound to consider the reviewability or correctness of
all the prior orders including the order on the review petition. (361-E)
1.2. The review was sought by the appellant on the basis of certa'in
additional material which according to him had relevance and the
H
358
t
-
I
f
A VINASH HANSRAJ GAJBHIYE "·OFF!. LIQUI. V. PHARMA. P. L TO [PK BALASUBRAMANYl\N, J.] J 59
Company Judge had found no ground for review based on discovery of A
~~~
new and important matter which after the exercise of due diligence was
not within the knowledge of the appellant or could not be produced by
him at the time when the original order was passed. This finding by the
Company Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench in its order dated
19.9.2002. When the appellant sought a review of that order, the Division B
Bench found that the appellant was indulging in dilatory tactics just to
thwart the order passed by the Company Judge on the misfeasance
1
application. The Court also found that there was no ground made out for
---#
reviewing its order dated 19.9.2002. The Division Bench and the Single
Judge both were justified in not acceding to the prayer for review made
by the appellant. (361-G-H; 362-A-B)
c
1.3. The appellant had an opportunity to put forward his contentions
as a notice in that behalf was taken out to him and served on him. Besides,
instead of taking appropriate steps at appropriate times, the appellant had
indulged in initiating proceedings one after another which were all found
to be untenable and without merit. (362-C-D)
D
1.4. The High Court cannot be faulted for refusing to review its order
__,,
dismissing the Company Appeal, or in dismissing the Company Appeal
~
itself. (362-DI
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1156 of2006. E
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.7.2003 of Bombay High Court
in Company Application No. 7612002 in Company Appeal No. 312002.
Gagan Sanghi, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Appellant.
T. Raja and S.C. Sharma for the Respondents.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. I. Leave granted.
2. This appeal, as can be seen from paragraph I of the Petition for
G
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
J
Court refused to review its judgment in Company Appeal No. 3 of 2002
dated 19.9.2002 dismissing the appeal. Company Appeal No. 3 of 2002 was
~-
I
filed by the appellant, the legal representative of an ex-Director of Mis
Vidarbha Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, a company that went into H
360
SUPREME COt:RT REPORTS
[20061 2 S.C.R.
A liquidation and which was ordered to be wound up in Company Petition No

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.