Delhi High Court
Krishna Texport Indus Ltd vs Dcm Ltd on 10 October, 2012
Author: Indermeet Kaur
Bench: Indermeet Kaur
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment:10.10.2012
+ CO.PET. 11/1999
KRISHNA TEXPORT INDUS LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Adv.
versus
DCM LTD. ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Kirat Singh Nagra and
Mr.Tanuj Bhushan, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
Co.Appl. No.1933/2012 (Exemption) in Co. Pet. 11/1999 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Co.Appl. Nos.1931/2012 ( Review petition under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking review of the order dated 13.09.2012) and 1932/2012 (Under Section 151 read with Rule 9 of the Companies Act for recall of order dated 13.09.2012) in Co. Pet. 11/1999 These two applications seek a review and recall of order dated 13.09.2012; submission being that the parties were in fact negotiating possibility of a settlement and this has been recorded by an order of the Co. Petition No. 11/1999 Page 1 of 3 Division Bench on 19.10.2005 as also a subsequent order dated 22.05.2006; in this scenario, the impugned order holding that the winding up petition is not maintainable suffers from a material irregularity which entitles the petitioner to a review and recall of the order dated 13.09.2012. The orders of the Division Bench relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner dated 19.10.2005 & 22.05.2006 have been perused. It is not in dispute that a suit for declaration has been filed by the respondent seeking a declaration to the effect that a sum of Rs.4.10 crores has been paid to the petitioner in full and final settlement of his claim. In fact in the impugned order, the Court had noted that on the earlier date i.e. on 31.08.2012, the petitioner had taken time to take instructions as to whether she wishes to pursue this winding up petition or not.
Parameters of review are contained in Order XLVII of the Code of the Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). Unless and until there is a glaring mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or some evidence has crept in which even after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the appellant at the time when the impugned order was passed, a ground for review is not made out. None Co. Petition No. 11/1999 Page 2 of 3 of the averments now made before this Court fit into the parameters of Order XLVII of the Code.
An oral submission has been made that on the date when the impugned order has been passed, counsel for the petitioner was not available for the reason that her nephew was hospitalized. This does not find mention in the aforenoted two applications.
The impugned order has noted that when there are disputed questions of facts for which the evidence and trial is required, a winding up petition is not maintainable.
No ground for review. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J OCTOBER 10, 2012 A Co. Petition No. 11/1999 Page 3 of 3