TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses review application in Company Appeal finding no manifest error; technicalities not necessary; delay condonation rejected.</h1> <h3>Dinesh Sud Versus M/s. Stitchwell Qualitex Pvt. Ltd. & Others</h3> Dinesh Sud Versus M/s. Stitchwell Qualitex Pvt. Ltd. & Others - TMI Issues:1. Review of the order passed by the Court in Company Appeal (SB) No.69/2011.2. Alleged mistakes in the judgment regarding property allotment and applicability of Section 108 of the Companies Act.3. Preliminary objection to the review petition based on delay and non-acceptance of claims by the Court.4. Interpretation of the family arrangement and the validity of the property allotment.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Review of the Court's OrderThe petitioner filed Company Application No.179/2014 seeking a review of the order passed in Company Appeal (SB) No.69/2011. The review was sought based on two points raised by the petitioner regarding alleged mistakes in the judgment.Issue 2: Alleged Mistakes in the JudgmentThe petitioner contended that the property at G-58, Sector-6, Noida was not allotted to the company as stated in the judgment but to respondent Nos.2 & 3. Additionally, the petitioner argued that the Court did not provide findings on the applicability of the judgments cited in support of the proposition that Section 108 of the Companies Act is mandatory.Issue 3: Preliminary Objection and Non-Acceptance of ClaimsThe respondent raised a preliminary objection to the review petition based on a 59-day delay, which was not adequately explained by the petitioner. It was argued that the Court's non-acceptance of the claim regarding property allotment cannot be the basis for a review application. The respondent also contended that the Court's judgment was premised on the validity of the family arrangement, leading to the decision not to consider the authorities cited by the petitioner regarding the mandatory nature of Section 108 of the Companies Act.Issue 4: Interpretation of Family Arrangement and Property AllotmentThe Court analyzed the petitioner's claim that the property was not part of the family settlement and was allotted to respondent Nos.2 & 3. However, the Court found that the lease deed presented by the petitioner was not considered during the appeal proceedings and could not be entertained during the review. The Court emphasized that the power of review can only be exercised in the presence of a patent error in the judgment, which was not apparent in this case. The judgment was based on the validity of the family arrangement, and technicalities regarding Section 108 were not deemed necessary due to the acceptance of the arrangement by the parties involved.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the review application and the associated condonation of delay application, stating that the claims made did not demonstrate a manifest error in the judgment that warranted a review.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
