M/S.
J.P. Srivastava & Sons (Rampur) Pvt. Ltd.& Ors Vs. M/S. Gwalior Sugar
Company Ltd. & Ors [2004] Insc 197 (25 March 2004)
N.Santosh
Hegde & B.P. Singh.
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4579-4580/2003 SANTOSH HEGDE,J.
While
considering the above review petitions in Chambers and while giving liberty of
oral hearing to the parties we issued notice on 27.8.2003 to the respondents on
these review petitions.
Heard
the learned counsel for the parties. Review petitions are admitted.
After
hearing the learned counsel we think it appropriate to dispose of these review
petitions finally. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits while
remanding the above appeals back to the High Court, we had indicated that we
will not be expressing any final opinion on any of the issues involved in the
said appeals. But while perusing the copy of the judgment parties noticed that
in regard to the question of the authority of a single Member of the Company
Law Board to decide issues such as one that was involved in the case before the
Company Law Board, we had expressed our agreement with the finding of the
learned single Judge of the High Court which according to the learned counsel
was not intended since we had decided to remand the matter back to the High
Court for consideration of issues not considered by the High Court in the
impugned order.
The
learned senior counsel for the respondents however contended that this question
was argued before this Court and the finding given by us on the said question
was not unintended but was a finding given after hearing the parties concerned.
Therefore, there is no need to review the said order.
As
could be seen from our order under review, the issue that arose for
consideration before the High Court was not only the question of jurisdiction of
a single member of the Company Law Board to take up the matters sitting singly,
but also other issues involving various other questions. But the High Court
decided only the question of jurisdiction of the single Member of the Company
Law Board to entertain a petition without going into the other issues.
Therefore,
while requiring the High Court to give a finding on all other issues also which
arose before it in the appeal, we think it was not correct on our part to have
expressed our views in regard to the sole issue decided by the learned single
Judge. While this Court on remand need not go into the issue already decided by
it, namely, the jurisdiction of the single member to entertain a petition, we
expect the High Court to decide the other issues so that the aggrieved party
could take recourse to such remedy as is available to them in law. In that
process, we think the expression of a view by us as to the correctness of the
finding of the learned single Judge was unnecessary.
Though
this expression of our view may not be an error apparent on the face of the
record, in the interest of justice, we think that this issue though it stands
concluded so far as the High Court is concerned, same should be kept open to be
agitated in a future proceeding after the High Court decides the other issues
involved in the appeal as directed in the above order of ours.
Therefore,
we in the process of reviewing the order delete the observation as to our
agreement with the finding of the learned single Judge on the question of the
authority of a single member of the Company Law Board to decide issues such as
one that was involved in the cases before him, and as held in the original
order of ours, the matter will stand remitted to the High Court for deciding
the other issues except the one already decided by the High Court.
With
the above modification, the review petitions stand allowed.
Back
