SMT. ARATI DUTTA versus EASTERN TEA ESTATE (P) LTD.

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1070 · Decided: 13-11-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SMT. ARATI DUTTA 
v. 
EASTERN TEA ESTATE (P) LTD. 
NOVEMBER 13, 1987 
B 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
Companies Act 1956: Sections 397, 398, 403 and 483-Appeal 
against decision of Single Judge of High Court-Whether lies to Divi-
sion Bench-Absence of procedural rules-Effect of. 
Practice and Procedure: Appeal against decision of Single 
C Judge-Absence of procedural rules-Cannot take away litigant's right 
to file and jurisdiction of High Court to dispose of such appeals-High 
Court to frame Ru/es under its Rule-making power. 
The appellant filed a petition under Sections 397 and 398 read 
D with Section 403 of the Companies Act, 1956 in respect of the affairs of 
the respondent firm which was disposed of in terms of the compromise 
arrived at between the parties. The parties agreed that no Auditor need 
be appointed for the determination of the liabilitY., and that the determi-
nation as per the 1973 balance sheet should be left entirely to the Court. 
In accordance with the said compromise, the parties filed their balance 
E sheets regarding the payments made by them which related to liabilities 
as on 31st December, 1973. 
A Single Judge of the High Court computed the liabilities of the 
parties on that basis. 
F 
The appellant preferred an appeal before the Division Bench 
G 
against the aforesaid decision. The Division Bench held that as no 
Letters Patent was applicable to the High Court there was no provision 
for an appeal against the judgment of the Single Judge and dismissed 
the appeal. 
On the question: whether an appeal lies to the Division Bench 
under section 483 of the Companies Act, against the orders of a Single 
Judge, 
Disposing of the appeal, 
H 
HELD: Sections 397 and 398 read with section 483 of the 
1070 
.~
\.... 
--rlf" -
' 
SMf. ARATI v. EASTERN TEA ESTATE [MUKHARJI. J.] 
1071 
Companies Act, 1956 indicate that an appeal would lie in the same A 
manner to the same court. Naturally and logically, therefore, an 
appeal from the decision of the Single Judge would lie to the Division 
Bench. [1076E·F] 
Shankarlal Aggarwal & Ors. v. S.L. Poddar & Ors. A.I.R. 1965 
S.C. 507 followed. 
B 
Shanta Genevienve Pommerat & Anr. v. Papers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 
A.LR. 1983 S.C. 269; Mis. Go/cha Investment (P) Ltd. v. Shanti 
Chandra Bafna, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1350 and Mis. Tarapose & Co. v. 
Cochin Shipyard Ltd., A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1072 referred to. 
Absence of procedural rules does not take away a litigant's right C 
to file appeals against the decision of Single Judge when the statute 
confers such a right specifically, and the jurisdiction of the High Court 
to dispose of such an appeal, if so filed. If there are no Rules, they 
should be framed by the High Court in its jurisdiction of Rule-making 
power for filing and disposal of such appeals. [1076G-H] 
D 
In the instant case, though the present application was relating to 
sections 397 and 398, and as it arises in respect of the orders passed 
under those sections, the provisions of section 483 would be attracted 
and an appeal would lie to the Division Bench. [1073F-G] 
[The High Court found that only a sum of Rs.6,81,299.67 was 
payable by the appellants to the respondent. The Court is of the opinion 
that the High Court was right in its determination, and that is the sum which 
should be the liability of the appeUant. AppeUant directed to pay the 
aforesaid amount to the respondent in full settlement of the dues.I [1077E·G I 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1510 
of 1987 etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.6.1987 of the Gauhati 
High Court in F.A. No. 19 of 1984. 
Dr. Shankar Ghosh, Gobind Das, Ashok Sen, S.N. Mukharji, 
N .R. Choudhary and G .S. Chatterjee for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
F 
G 
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. These appeals by special leave 
H 
1072 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] I S.C.R. 
A relate to the affairs of M Is. Eastern Tea Estate (P) Ltd. It was of two 
branches namely, the Dutta's and the Choudhury's. Due to death and 
lack of cordiality between the erstwhile partners the two branches 
first drifted and then parted company as it unfortunately is the fate of 
so many Indian concerns and there were disputes and litigations in 
Court. 
B 
The Civil Appeal No. 1510 of 1987 arises from a judgment and 
decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Gauhati dated 4th 
June, 1987. It appears that that a petition was filed originally by the 
appellant under sec
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.