Calcutta High Court
Re:Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd vs Turner Morrison & Co. Ltd on 10 February, 2015
Author: Aniruddha Bose
Bench: Aniruddha Bose
ORDER SHEET
CA No.11 of 2015
With
CP No.33 of 1988
CA No.139 of 2013
CA No.491 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Original Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
RE:HUNGERFORD INVESTMENT TRUST LTD.
Versus
TURNER MORRISON & CO. LTD.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
Date : 10th February, 2015.
Appearance:
Mr. Deepak Khosla, Adv.
Mr. Anunoy Basu, Adv.
The Court : This matter is being taken up for hearing today
on being listed at 2 pm. There is a resolution of the Bar
Association of this Court today to the effect that as a mark of
respect to the departed soul of Mr. Laxmi Chand Behani, former
President of the Bar Association, the association will remain
closed from 10:30 am and the members of the Bar Association would
not be in a position to participate in any judicial proceeding
today from 10:30 am onwards. This matter was listed today after
being assigned by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 20th January,
2
2015. This matter was earlier listed on 15th January, 2015 and on
that date objection was taken on behalf of the respondent no.1 as
regards jurisdiction and determination of this Court to hear out this matter on the ground that the matter was not specially assigned before me. I do not have regular jurisdiction or determination to hear out company matters, to which the subject matter of this application relates. The matter was referred to the Hon'ble Chief Justice in these circumstances for appropriate direction and on 20th January, 2015 the order of assignment was made.
Another matter, pertaining to Angelo Brothers, in which also Mr. Khosla appeared on behalf of the Company (in liquidation), was heard on the following day, i.e. 16th January, 2015 and that matter was directed to be listed on 10th February, 2015 i.e. today. Since Mr. Khosla is an outstation counsel, I had directed the registry to list this matter also today. Accordingly, this matter has been listed. The respondent no.1, however, is not represented by the learned arguing counsel, but Mr. Anunoy Basu, learned advocate appears on behalf of the respondent no.1 prays for adjournment having regard to the resolution of the Bar Association.
Though not recorded earlier in the order, Mr. Bose, learned senior advocate, who had appeared for the respondent no.1 wanted to file an affidavit to the application before this Court considered the question of grant of any order or direction at the 3 interim stage. This fact is not in dispute. At the same time, Mr. Basu raised objection on authority of Mr. Khosla to represent Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. in the capacity of Advocate-on- Record. Objection is also raised on maintainability of the application in its present form. It is also urged on behalf of the respondent no.1 that there is no valid Vokalatnama filed on behalf of the Applicant. On the other hand, on behalf of the Applicant, objection is raised on authority of Advocates-on-Record of the respondent no.1 to represent them. On this count, it is submitted that the person executing the Vokalatnama on behalf of the respondent no.1 has no supporting Board resolution. Secondly, it is alleged that the Advocate-on-Record of the respondent no.1 is acting for illegal purpose. Third allegation of the applicant is that the same Advocate-on-Record had earlier acted against the respondent no.1 in an inter-connected proceeding and they are not entitled to practise on the Original Side of this court. I shall deal with the issues raised as preliminary objections before addressing the points raised in this application on merit. But I do not think any prejudice would be caused to any of the parties if direction for filing affidavit is given without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to question maintainability of the application in its present form as well as authority of Mr. Khosla to represent Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd as Advocate-on- Record. The preliminary issues urged by Mr. Khosla would also be 4 addressed to by this Court before entering on merits of the matter.
Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed by 18th February, 2015. Reply by 24th February, 2015. This matter shall be listed on 24th February, 2015 at 2:30 pm. The copy of the affidavit-in-opposition shall be served on Mr. Nirmaljit Singh Hoon who is present in Court today at an email address given by Mr. Hoon himself being [email protected]. Direction is being given for service on Mr. Hoon as it was submitted by Mr. Basu that since authority of Mr. Khosla to act as Advocate-on-Record is a disputed issue, service ought to be effected on Mr. Hoon personally.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.) cs