Supreme Court - Daily Orders
U.P.Cement Vetanbhogi Sahkari Rin ... vs Official Liquidator on 20 January, 2016
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C. Pant
1
ITEM NO.1(PH) COURT NO.7 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 21334/2010
(ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 18/12/2009
IN SA NO. 1748/2009 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
ALLAHABAD)
U.P.CEMENT VETANBHOGI SAHKARI RIN
SAMITI LTD. PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)
(FOR FINAL DISPOSAL)
Date : 20/01/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv.
Mr. Pawan Kumar Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
[VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI]
Signature Not Verified
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
Digitally signed by
Vinod Lakhina
Date: 2016.01.21
13:25:04 IST
Reason:
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE] 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.427 OF 2016 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.21334/2010] U.P.CEMENT VETANBHOGI SAHKARI RIN SAMITI LTD. ...APPELLANT VERSUS OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR & ANR. ..RESPONDENTS ORDER
1. Leave granted
2. The order of the Division Bench of the High Court holding the appeal before it to be not maintainable appears to be correct on a consideration of the relevant provisions of the Allahabad High Court Rules; Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 and Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, to avoid a further round of litigation, we are of the view that the present appeal should be 2 treated to be against the order of the learned single dated dated 26th May, 2009.
3. Having perused the order of the learned single judge dated 27th April, 2007; the correction prayed for which was refused by the order dated 26th May, 2009 which order was subjected to appeal that has been held to be not maintainable by the Division Bench, we are of the considered view that the benefit of the amount of Rs.94 lakhs which is yet to be deducted having been given to the appellant society, the correction in respect of the amount of Rs.34 lakhs, namely, by substitution of the words “has been deducted” in place of “to be deducted” ought to have been allowed. We, therefore, allow the aforesaid correction in the initial order of the learned single judge dated 27th April, 2007 and leave the matter for consequential 3 determination to be made by the Official Liquidator in accordance with law. In this regard, we may mention that the finding of the learned single judge in the order dated 26th May, 2009 that there was lack of proof of deduction does not appear to be correct in view of the letters dated 16th April, 1998, 5th June, 1998 and 5th June, 1998 issued by the appellant-society to the General Managers, U.P. State Cement Corporation Ltd. Of Churk, Chunar and Dala unit which would go to show that the deduction, in fact, has been made.
4. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ...................,J.
(PRAFULLA C. PANT) NEW DELHI JANUARY 20, 2016