Calcutta High Court
Dharam Godha & Ors vs Universal Paper Mills Ltd. & Ors on 11 January, 2011
Author: I. P. Mukerji
Bench: I. P. Mukerji
TA No.1 of 2011
APOT No. 14 of 2011
ACO NO. of 2011
CP No.201 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
DHARAM GODHA & ORS.
Versus
UNIVERSAL PAPER MILLS LTD. & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI
Date : 11th January, 2011.
Mr.S.N. Mookerji, Sr. Adv.,
Mr.Ratnanko Banerji, Adv.,
for the appellants.
Mr.S.K. Kapoor, Sr. Adv.,
Mr.Soumen Sen, Adv.,
Mr.D. Basak, Adv.,
Mr.D. Jain, Adv.,
for the respondents.
The Court : This is an appeal from an order dated 6th January, 2010 passed by the Company Law Board in CA No.3 of 2010 connected with CP No.201 of 2007.
2
By consent of the parties, this appeal is treated on the day's list, heard on the available papers and being disposed of by this order.
The entire dispute between the parties in this appeal is with regard to the anticipated receipt by the respondent company of a sum of Rs.5 crores from Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on a fire insurance claim.
The appellants think that they should be restrained from using any part of that money.
I find from the records that an application was made before the Company Law Board in 2008 by the self-same appellants for restraining use by the company of the self- same anticipated receipt of Rs.5 crores. In that application on 3rd January, 2008 the following order was passed:
"In so far as the insurance claim is concerned, instead of restraining the company from utilizing the money, I only stipulate that the while the company is at liberty to use the same towards payment of statutory dues if any, for any other payment, the permission of this Board should be obtained. The details of the statutory dues, if any, paid out of the insurance claim should be furnished to this Board."3
Mr. Kapoor, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents, has taken me extensively to the records of earlier proceedings taken by the parties and the orders passed therein, which were incorporated in a compilation. He showed me the order dated 26th February, 2010 in WP No.3085(W)/2010 with CAN No.1413/2010. He also took me to the judgement and order dated 2nd March, 2010 in AST No.67/2010 passed in appeal against the order dated 26th February, 2010, dismissing the appeal. He also showed me an order dated 9th April 2010 of the Supreme Court of India dismissing the Special Leave Petition preferred against such order. He also took me through the records of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with regard to the insurance claim. All these proceedings were shown to me to establish that the appellants have till date not been able to establish that they are entitled to control of the company or over the insurance claim.
I asked the learned Counsel for the appellants to show me any change of circumstance to warrant interference with the order dated 3rd January, 2008 passed by the Company Law Board which is still subsisting.
4
He showed me some pleadings that the statutory dues would be negligently disbursed by the respondents so as to deplete the said anticipated fund of Rs.5 crores.
Examining the Company Law Board order dated 6th January, 2010 I find that this order has been passed on the premise that there is no change in the circumstances existing at the time when the order dated 3rd January, 2008 was passed.
I am substantially of the same view. But, however, considering the arguments made on behalf of the appellants that the statutory dues would be negligently disbursed, I dispose of this appeal by slightly modifying the orders dated 6th January, 2010 and 3rd January, 2008 of the Company Law Board by directing the respondent no.1 to file a statement of estimate of statutory expenses with the Company Law Board at least one week before they are paid out upon notice to the appellants. The appellants will be at liberty to inspect such statement of estimated expenditure in the registry of the Company Law Board and take copies thereof with the Board's permission.
The rest of the order dated 6th January, 2010 read with the order dated 3rd January, 2008 will remain unaltered. 5
On the prayer of the parties, I direct the Company Law Board to dispose of the main proceeding by 15th May, 2011 without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any party.
This appeal is disposed of accordingly. All undertakings are discharged. The interim order dated 7th January, 2010 is vacated.
The respondent nos.2 and 3 wanted to use an affidavit without having furnished copies to all the parties. I have not permitted such use. Such affidavit may be used before the Company Law Board after obtaining their permission.
As no affidavit-in-opposition has been used, the allegations contained in the petition are not admitted.
All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.
(I. P. MUKERJI, J.) Sd/