Delhi High Court
Raman Chadha vs Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. on 30 November, 2012
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Chief Justice, Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 30th November, 2012
+ CO.APP. 97/2012
RAMAN CHADHA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Anurag Pratap & Dr.
Manmohan Sharma, Advs.
Versus
BASTI SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Alok Aggarwal, Mr. Uday Kumar & Mr. Mayank, Advs.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 2 nd February, 2012 of the learned Company Judge of this Court in an appeal (Co.A.(SB) 74/2011) under Section10F of the Companies Act, 1956 against the order dated 9th September, 2011 of the Company Law Board dismissing the application of the appellant under Section 111A of the Act for rectification of the Share Register. This appeal is accompanied with an application for condonation of 250 days delay in filing the same. The delay is sought to be explained by pleading that the appellant had filed an SLP No.12054/2012 challenging the said order dated 2 nd February, 2012 Co.App.97/2012 Page 1 of 4 but which SLP was on 30th July, 2012 dismissed as withdrawn and whereafter the present appeal was filed.
2. This appeal came up before us first on 27 th November, 2012 when we had raised doubt as to the maintainability thereof. The matter was adjourned to today on the request of the counsel for the appellant to study the matter.
3. The appeal is filed under Section 483 of the Act. However Section 483 provides for appeals from orders made or decision given in the matter of winding up of a Company by the Court. The said provision thus cannot be invoked.
4. The counsel for the appellant has today drawn our attention to:-
(i). Prakash Timbers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sushma Shingla AIR 1996 Allahabad 262 (DB); and,
(ii). Maharashtra Power Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dabhol Power Co. AIR 2004 Bombay 38 (DB).
What we however find is that the Allahabad High Court had held such intra court appeal to be maintainable under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules which, needless to state, do not apply to this Court. The Bombay High Court of course held an appeal to the Co.App.97/2012 Page 2 of 4 Division Bench maintainable against the order of the Company Judge in an appeal under Section 10F of the Act.
5. We have however drawn the attention of the counsel for the appellant to Kamal Kumar Dutta Vs. Ruby General Hospital Ltd. (2006) 7 SCC 613 where the judgment supra of the Bombay High Court was held to be not laying down a correct proposition of law and it was held that no further appeal (from an order in an appeal under Section 10F of the Act) had been provided under the Act and Parliament while amending Section 100A of the CPC w.e.f. 1 st July, 2002 took away the letters patent power of High Court in the matter of appeal against order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench.
6. The counsel for the respondent appearing on advance notice has also invited our attention to the judgment dated 20 th October, 2008 of the Full Bench of this Court in LPA No.198/2008 titled Avtar Narain Behal Vs. Subhash Chander Behal, also laying down that after the insertion of Section 100A in CPC, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against the judgment rendered by a Single Judge in a first appeal arising out of a special enactment.
7. This appeal is thus clearly not maintainable. Co.App.97/2012 Page 3 of 4
8. Before parting with the case, we may record the contention of the counsel for the respondent that the Special Leave Petition preferred by the appellant was argued at length and was withdrawn only when the appellant failed to make out a challenge on merits to the order dated 2 nd February, 2012 of the learned Company Judge. Of course the counsel for the appellant controverts and has relied on Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen AIR 1981 SC 960 and Sahi Ram Vs. Avtar Singh AIR 1999 Delhi 96 (DB) to contend that dismissal in limine without speaking order or withdrawal of an SLP does not come in the way of an appeal being filed. However since we find the appeal in any case to be not maintainable, need is not felt to deal with the said aspect.
9. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J CHIEF JUSTICE NOVEMBER 30, 2012 pp..
Co.App.97/2012 Page 4 of 4