Richardson & Cruddas Ltd. vs Haridas Mundhra And Ors. on 30 March, 1972
22.In the context of the above question Mr. Phadke invited our attention to three decisions having a bearing on the court's powers under Section 402 of the Act, namely, Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. Nageswara Rao [1956] 26 Comp Cas 91 (SC), Shanti Prasad Jain v. Kalinga Tubes Ltd. and Richardson & Cruddas Ltd. v. Haridas Mundhra [1959] 29 Comp Cas 549 (Cal). In the first two cases the question had arisen about the nature and scope of the court's power under Section 397 read with Section 402 (equivalent to Section 153C of the old Act) while in the last case a question had arisen about the court's power under Section 398 read with Section 402. It will suffice if we refer to the last decision of the Calcutta High Court. In that case the question was whether the court had power to appoint an advisory board to assist the special officer who had been appointed by an earlier order under Section 402 in a proceeding instituted under Section 398 of the Companies Act and while dealing with the nature and scope of the powers conferred upon the court under Section 402, Justice Mukharji, at page 550 of his judgment, has observed as follows :