LexVIJAY KUMAR KARWA versus OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, ROHTAS INDS. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 626 .... A VIJAY KUMAR KARWA v. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, ROHTAS INDS. LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2008) B FEBRUARY 28, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] Companies Act, 1956: s. 483 - Appeal filed under - c Summary disposal of - Cforrectness of - Held: Not correct as it was a statutory appeal - Matter remitted to High Court. The appellant, representative of a group of Companies was interested in the revival of a C..Jmpany which had becomes sick. He filed an application in the D High Court in the company case proceedings in respect of that sick company and offered to pay Rs. 65.51 crores r <. as consideration money for purchase of assets of the company in liquidation and proposed to invest Rs. 650 crores for revival of the industry. Official liquidator filed E reply to the prayers made in the application by the appellant. The matter was heard by the High .court which directed issuance of sale notice for assets of the company. F IA filed by the appellant was disposed of. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal under s.483 of tlfe Companies Act before the Division Bench on 11.1.2007. The Company Judge proceeded with the matter and directed sale of the assets G of the company in favour of the Indian Railways who had made offer of Rs.140 crores. On 12.3.2007, IA was filed by the appellant giving details of his proposal. By the r impugned order the Division Bench dismissed the appeal. r In appeal to this Court, appellant conteryded that such H 626 VIJAY KUMAR KARWA v. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, 627 ROHTAS INDS. LTD. [PASAYAT, J.] summary disposal is indefensible particularly when the A appeal is a statutory appeal. Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court HELD : The High Court is bound to entertain the B appeal against the order of the Single Judge who ... disposed it of on merit and not summarily or in limine . Every order which may reasonably be considered to be a judicial order as distinct from merely administrative order is appealable in terms of s.483 of the Companies Act. c [Paras 6, 7] [629-E, F, G] Shanta Genevienve Pommerat and Anr. v. Sakal Papers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. AIR (1983) SC 269; Smt. Arati Dutta v. Mis. Eastern Tea Estates (P) Ltd. AIR (1988) SC 325 - relied on. D ' ' CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2008. From the Judgment and Order dated 2.4.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in C.A. No. 4/2006. E P.S. Mishra, Manu Shankar Mishra, Ravi Chandra Mishra and Amit Pawan for the Appellant. A. Sharan ASG, Devashish Bharuka, Ashok K. Srivastava, Rahul Kaushik, B.K. Prasad, D.S. Mahra, Binu Tamia, Sanjay F Kapur, Rajiv Kapur, Shubhra Kapur and Arti Singh for the Respondent. • The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. G 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court summarily dismissing r " the Company Appeal No.4 of 2006 filed by the appellant under l ' Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act'). H 628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R. A 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: Company case no.3 of 1984 was filed before the Patna High Court in respect of Rohtas Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'company') which purportedly had become 8 sick. It is the case of the appellant that though efforts were made to revive, it could not materialize. Eventually the High Court started the process of disposal of the assets of the company. Appellant claiming to be representative of Bangar Group of ... Industries, Calcutta, filed an application in the said case. After C giving particulars of the group which had annual turnover of about Rs.5,000 crores, it was mentioned in the application that the appellant was interested in the revival of the company. It was also mentioned that the appellant had so decided because of the change of political conditions of the State and there was scope for industrial growth. The appellant offered to pay D Rs.65.51 crores as consideration money for purchase of assets .. of the company in liquidation and proposed to invest Rs.650 r " crores for revival of the industry. Steps were taken at various stages by the Government and the functionaries of the E . government on the application of appellant. Official Liquidator was ask.ed to file
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.