2010 (9) TMI 218

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ders or those who have purchased the deposit documents in the open market, for being impleaded as party in the present appeal, as according to them, they are likely to be adversely affected, in case the appeal is allowed. 2. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India says that he has no objection in case the applicants in these applications are permitted to intervene. Hence, the applications are allowed. All the applicants are ordered to be impleaded as respondents. 3. Necessary corrections shall be carried out by the Registry. Amended Memo of Parties be also filed, in the course of the day, by the appellant. All the applications stand disposed of. Company Appeal No.2/2009 4. This appeal, under section 391(7) of the Companies....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....overnment deserves to be granted one more opportunity to make representation, because interests of a large number of persons, which, according to him is around 85,000, are going to be affected by the arrangement proposed by the Company and approved by the learned Single Judge. According to him, hard earned money of depositors is required to be refunded to them and in case the Central Government is not permitted to make representation all those depositors will be put to huge financial loss. He submits that very important and significant facts had not been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, when the impugned order was passed, and that those facts find mention in the representation, which had been dispatched from Delhi and was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was not file and the matter was adjourned to 25-6-2009 and then to 24-7- 2009 and finally to 3-8-2009. 10. On 3-8-2009, learned Single Judge heard the matter. Arguments could not be concluded on that day and the matter was again taken up on 4-8-2009, when the impugned order was passed. From a reading of the impugned order, it is made out that the learned counsel representing the appellant (Central Government) had been requesting, throughout the hearing of the matter, for affording atleast one more opportunity to make representation, but his request was turned down. 11. It is true that the time granted to the Central Government, for making representation, was more than sufficient, but in view of the submissions made by learned Addition....