TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether an application styled as a demurrer to challenge maintainability of proceedings should be treated on the principles of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and not as a waiver or admission of the opposing party's factual case; (ii) whether the plea that the consent decree was obtained by fraud on the court could be rejected at the threshold on limitation or maintainability; (iii) whether Angelo Brothers Ltd., being in liquidation, and Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd., as a contributory/third party, had locus to seek recall or declaration of voidness of the consent decree.
Issue (i): Whether an application styled as a demurrer to challenge maintainability of proceedings should be treated on the principles of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and not as a waiver or admission of the opposing party's factual case.
Analysis: The expression demurrer, in Indian procedure, was held not to carry the obsolete common law consequence of admitting the opponent's facts. A preliminary objection to maintainability is to be tested on the principles underlying Order 7 Rule 11, and if mixed questions of law and fact arise, they cannot be finally decided at that stage. The filing of such an objection does not forfeit the right to contest the matter on merits later.
Conclusion: The objection was treated as akin to an Order 7 Rule 11 application and not as an admission of the facts pleaded by the opposite side.
Issue (ii): Whether the plea that the consent decree was obtained by fraud on the court could be rejected at the threshold on limitation or maintainability.
Analysis: A decree obtained by fraud on the court is a nullity and may be challenged at any time, and limitation does not operate in the same way as it would for an ordinary challenge to a decree. However, whether the alleged fraud was fraud on the party or fraud on the court, and when knowledge of it was acquired, were disputed factual questions requiring evidence. On the materials before the Court, it was not possible to conclusively hold that the consent decree was fraudulent or non est.
Conclusion: The challenge to the consent decree could not be finally rejected at the threshold on limitation grounds, but no finding of fraud on the court was recorded at this stage.
Issue (iii): Whether Angelo Brothers Ltd., being in liquidation, and Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd., as a contributory/third party, had locus to seek recall or declaration of voidness of the consent decree.
Analysis: A company in liquidation cannot be represented in litigation by its erstwhile director or officer except through the Official Liquidator. On that basis, the application filed on behalf of Angelo Brothers Ltd. through N.S. Hoon was not maintainable. As to Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd., a third party with sufficient interest may in an appropriate case invoke the Court's inherent powers to challenge a decree alleged to have been obtained by fraud, but the present materials were insufficient to conclude that such a fraud was established or that the proper forum had been approached. The Court therefore left that claim to be agitated before the appropriate forum, including with leave of the Company Court where necessary.
Conclusion: The proceedings were dismissed as against Angelo Brothers Ltd., while Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. was left to seek relief before the appropriate forum.
Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the maintainability objection only to the extent that Angelo Brothers Ltd. could not act through N.S. Hoon, but it did not finally adjudicate the alleged fraud or extinguish Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd.'s substantive grievance, which was left open for proper proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: In company proceedings, a preliminary objection styled as demurrer is tested on Order 7 Rule 11 principles, a decree obtained by fraud on the court is a nullity not protected by ordinary limitation, and a company in liquidation must act through the Official Liquidator, though an interested third party may in a proper case seek relief against a fraudulently obtained decree.
TaxTMI 
