SMT. JATAN KUMAR GOLCHA versus M/S. GOLCHA PROPERTIES (P) LTD.

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 247 · Decided: 16-12-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
> 
F 
G 
H 
247 
SMT. JATAN KUMAR GOLCHA 
v. 
MIS. GOLCHA PROPERTIES (P) LTD. 
December 16, 1970 
(J, C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.) 
Indian Companies Act (I of 1956), ss. 457(1), 483 Company Judge's 
order-No notice to person holding rights in the property-Whether lie 
has . right to appeal. 
Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (Raiastlian High Court), rr. 103, 
139-Scope of. 
The respondent-company holding leasehold 
rights in the appellant's 
land went into liquidation. Accepting the official liquidator's report the 
company Judge (Rajasthan High Court) without hearing anyone or issu· 
ing notice to the appellant ordered auction of !he lease hold right of the 
respondent company. The appellant sent a letter to the Official 
Liqui· 
dator revoking the licence granted to the company and calling upon him 
to deliver possession of the land. The Official Liquidator claimed that the 
company was entitled to a further pct iod of lease under the agreement. 
Notice was issued in respect of thi> proposed auction sale. The appellant 
filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court held that since 
the appellant had not appeared before the company Judge, she was not 
entitled to maintain the appeal, and further that the only remedy of the 
appellant was by way of a suit after obtaining leave of the Company 
Judge under s. 446 of the Indian Companies Act. In appeal to thi• Court. 
HELD : The High Court was in error in not entertaining and deciding 
the appeal preferred by the appellant who was the owner of the land in 
which lease hold rights said to have been created by her in favour of the 
company in liquidation were sought to be' sold. 
An appeal lies under s. 483 of the Act from any order made or de-
cision given in the matter of winding up of a company by the Court and 
it lies to the same court to which, in the same manner in which, and sub-
ject to the same conditions under which, appeals lie from any order or 
decision of the Court in cases within its ordinary jurisdiction. Therefore 
an appeal was cq!Jlpetent against the order of the company Judge. (249" DI 
It is implicit in Rule 103 of the Company Court Rules that if the 
directions which have to be given by the Court would affect any person 
prejudicially he must be served with a notice of the summons under the 
general rule of natural justice and that no order should be made affecting 
the rights of a party without affording a proper opportunity to it to re-
present its case. [250 Al 
Further, the Official Liquidator as well as the learned company Judge 
were bound by the rules .of natural justice to issue a notice to the appel-
lant and hear her before making the order appealed against. 
If there 
was default on their part in not following the correct procedure the ap· 
pellant could not be deprived of her right to get her !lfievance redressed 
by filing an appeal. [250 CJ 
248 
SUPllEME COUllT l.EPOllTS 
[1971] 3 s.c.R. 
CIVIL APPELLATE ]UlllSDICTION : Civil J\ppeal No. 1104 of 
1970. 
Appeal by special leave from the j•vla 
• . and order dated 
April 9, 1970, of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Civil Special 
Appeal No. 126 of 1970. 
M. C. Chagla, F. S. Natiman, P. N. Tiwari and Q. C. Malther, 
for the appellant. 
M. C. Setalvad and B. P. Mahes1'.wari, for !he resP_1>ndem.t. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Grover, J. This is an appeal from a judgment of the 
Rajasthan High Court holding that ·the appellant was not \\ntitled 
to file an appeal against the order of the Co~pany Judge direct• 
ing sale of lease hold rights of the Golcha Properties ( P) Ltd. 
(in liquidation) in the land belonging to the appellant. 
\ 
The facts briefly are that on November 5, 1960 an agreement 
was entered into between the appellant and the respondent com-
pany allowing Golcha Properties (P) Ltd. to construct a cinema 
threatre within three years from the issue of the 'No Objection 
Certificate' on land measuring 42,900 sq. feet at Bhagwandas 
Road, Jaipur belonging to the ~pellant. The Company deposit-
ed a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs by way of security. In October 1963 
No Objection Certificate is stated to have been issued for cons-
truction of a cinema theatre. In 1966 a petition for winding up 
of the company was filed in the Rajasthan High Court. On May 
10, 1968 an order for winding up of the company was made 
and a liquidator was appointed. On July 11, 1969 the Official 
Liquidator made a report to the Company Judge for sale of the 
lease-h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.