Calcutta High Court
Angelo Brothers Ltd. (In Liqn.) vs Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd on 6 June, 2018
Author: Aniruddha Bose
Bench: Aniruddha Bose
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Original Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
CA No.135 of 2018
CP No.575 of 1982
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANGELO BROTHERS LTD. (IN LIQN.)
-AND-
BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. LTD.
-VS.-
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND ORS.
CA No.33 of 2018
CP No.575 of 1982
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANGELO BROTHERS LTD. (IN LIQN.)
-AND-
HUNGERFORD INVESTMENT TRUST LTD.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
Date:6th June, 2018.
MR.JOYDEEP KAR, SR.ADV.,MR. NIRMALYA DASGUPTA,MR.S.NIGAM ADVOCATES ..FOR BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. LTD.
MR.DEEPAK KHOSLA, MS.FATEMA NISSA, ADVOCATES ..FOR RESPONDENTS.
MR. S. C. PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR. The Court:-The application registered as CA 135 of 2018 has been taken out by Bennett Coleman & Company Ltd. seeking dismissal of an application registered as CA No.33 of 2018. Applicants shown in the cause title of CA No.33 of 2018 are Angelo Brothers Ltd. and Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. In the body of the application, however, the names of the two other individuals, Mr. Ravindra Singh and Mr. Rajinder Pal 2 Khosla, latter being described in paragraph 1 of the application as the deponent have been shown as applicants. In the affidavit supporting the application, Mr. Rajinder Pal Khosla has affirmed that he is a Director of the two applicant companies and also the third applicant of the case. So far as Mr. Ravindra Singh is concerned, there is no authorisation on his behalf in the said affidavit.
In these circumstances, Mr. Khosla, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants wants to withdraw the application and file an application afresh. The reason for this, according to him, is certain errors in proper description of the applicants. This being the position, the application registered as CA No.33 of 2018 is dismissed as withdrawn. Applicants therein shall be at liberty to file an application afresh on the self-same ground.
Mr. Dasgupta had objection to this liberty being granted. But since this application is being withdrawn to cure certain technical defects, I do not think such liberty will in any way impair or prejudice Mr. Dasgupta's clients. In the event his client has any objection on maintainability of such application, which is yet to be filed, he shall be at liberty to raise the question on maintainability at the appropriate time.
Mr. Khosla wants the Court to consider the allegations contained in the said application which is being withdrawn suo motu on the ground of there being fraud.
3
I am not inclined to enter into that exercise at this stage as I propose to address the question of winding-up status of the company, being Angelo Brothers Ltd. first along with a collateral issue. That collateral issue is that if the company is still in winding-up state, whether it shall continue to be in that status or not. I expect the allegations of fraud, if there be any, to crystallize when I decide the aforesaid questions.
Since CA No.33 of 2018, which has appeared in day's list against serial no.40 is being dismissed as withdrawn, I do not think CA No.135 of 2018 which is an application for dismissal of the said application can survive. Mr. Dasgupta further submits that certain issues were raised in this application, resolution of which shall be necessary for effective adjudication of the main question but those issues can be raised in a subsequent proceeding or in subsequent stage of this proceeding and for that reason CA No.135 of 2018 cannot be kept pending. This application has lost its utility and hence this application is disposed of.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.) nm