Kerala High Court
V.J. Thomas Vettom vs Kuttanad Rubber Co. Ltd. on 27 November, 1990
Author: K.S. Paripoornan
Bench: K.S. Paripoornan
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner in Company Petition No. 19 of 1974 is the appellant in this appeal. The petition was one filed under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, for relief against oppression. M.P. Menon J., by his judgment dated January 8, 1981, dismissed the petition. The petitioner filed M. F. A. No. 96 of 1981 and assailed the order passed by the learned single judge. The said appeal was heard along with M. F. A. No. 104 of 1981 and the Division Bench of this court by its judgment dated October 18, 1982, dismissed the appeals. The learned single judge made certain observations in the judgment dated January 8, 1981, stating that this is a fit case where the Central Government should act under Section 237(a)(ii) of the Act and appoint an inspector or inspectors to investigate the affairs of the company. It was duly complied with. An inspector was appointed by the Central Government to investigate the affairs of the company, pending the appeals in this court. He duly submitted a report. But, the said report was not adverted to nor taken into consideration by the Division Bench in disposing of the appeals by its judgment dated October 18, 1982. The petitioner in the company petition took up the matter in still further appeal before the Supreme Court. In C. A. No. 10113 of 1983 (S. L. P. Civil No. 14575 of 1982), the Supreme Court by its judgment dated October 31, 1983, disposed of the matter. The Supreme Court held that "the High Court may consider the inspector's report and give its findings thereon." It was further held that the High Court will decide the matter afresh after the Government and the parties filed their objections. A remit was ordered for the limited purpose of considering the effect of the inspector's report.
2. After remit by the Supreme Court, the Central Government and the parties have filed their objections. The inspector's report is in two volumes, and it contains an array of facts and other materials. They should be properly evaluated in considering the matter "afresh" as directed by the Supreme Court. Since the inspector's report was not available and so was not and could not be considered by the single judge when the company petition was disposed of, in the light of the very many aspects raised in the company petition and the facts contained in the inspector's report, it is only fair and proper that the court of first instance--the company court--evaluates the matter afresh in the light of the inspector's report. We are not expressing any opinion about the merits of the case or about the inspector's report at this juncture. In the light of the subsequent events, we deem it only fair and proper that the court of first instance should consider the matter afresh in accordance with law and, as ordered by the Supreme Court, consider the effect of the inspector's report and enter appropriate findings. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the learned single judge dated January 8, 1981, in the light of the subsequent order passed by the Supreme Court of India and order a remit of the matter to the company court, so that the matter may be disposed of afresh as stated above. No costs.