TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (11) TMI 503
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpany Court to dispose of the assets of the company in liquidation by issuing public notices inviting tenders in various newspapers, both at National and State level having circulation, especially in State of Punjab, State of M.P. and published from all major metro cities of the country. As placed on record on 25-2-2008 a public notice was issued by the Official Liquidator pursuant to which on 8-5-2008 the respondent No. 3 submitted its tender and deposited earnest money of Rs. 6 crores with the Official Liquidator. On 28-5-2008, the Official Liquidator filed OLR No. 28/2008 intimating that for lot Nos. 1 and 2 highest bid from respondent No. 3 for a total sum of Rs. 15 crores for lot No. 1 and Rs. 10 crores for lot No. 2 were received, it appears that on 23-6-2008 one M/s. SPA infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. filed IA No. 6229/08 seeking intervention to participate in the negotiations. On 11-8-2008 the Company Court allowed the said application and directed the said intervener to participate in the negotiations and directed the sale committee to complete the process within one month. It appears that negotiations took place between respondent No. 3 and the said SPA Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... three orders respectively passed by the Learned Company Judge on 6-5-2009, 19-8-2009 and 8-10-2009. 8. It would be apposite to take note of company appeal No. 7/2009 preferred by Sukhchainsingh. Be it noted that Sukhchainsingh neither submitted any tender nor offered any bid pursuant to the public notice dated 25-2-2008, so also even while other interveners submitted application before the Learned Company Judge offering higher price, Sukhchainsingh at a later point of time appeared before the Learned Company Judge and his application came up for hearing only after sale was confirmed on 19-8-2009. It appears that challenging order dated 8-10- 2009 Sukhchainsingh has filed this appeal. At the outset we would reject the appeal of Sukhchainsingh because Sukhchainsingh had never offered any bid muchless higher bid than the successful bidder respondent No. 3 before confirmation of sale on 19-8-2009 and did not espouse his cause before the Learned Company Judge at an appropriate stage before confirmation of sale on 19-8-2009. In these circumstances, the appeal preferred by Sukhchainsingh, being Co. Appeal No. 7/2009, has no merit and substance and we dismiss it without any hesitation. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d upon the Company Judge is original jurisdiction and since jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India is also an original jurisdiction and in the wake of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khandpith Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 an appeal having been prescribed from the original order passed by the Learned Single Judge in exercise of original jurisdiction, in the same manner an appeal would lie before the Division Bench under section 483. Shri Bagadiya further submitted that the objection raised on behalf of the respondent No. 3 is misconceived as section 483 provides the Forum and the manner and conditions subject to which an appeal lies and to give effect to section 483 ibid clue should be drawn from the Adhiniyam, 2005 to take the view that though section 483 is some what unhappily worded we should fall back upon the Adhiniyam, 2005 to hold that an appeal would lie to the Division Bench from the orders of the Learned Company Judge. Before testing the rival submissions raised by respondent No. 3 regarding maintainability of appeal and by the appellant in support of the maintainability of appeal, we would remind ourselves of certain general principles regarding interpretation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ute must be interpreted having regard to constitutional provisions as also human rights. The rule of "beneficent construction" is a rule which applies when two views are possible. If the statute is unambiguous and clear then this rule has no application. However, when the statute contains anomalies as regards its operation, then certainly rule of "beneficent construction" would be available to the Court to interpret the provision leaning towards "beneficent construction" to achieve the object underlying such statute. This view has been approved by the Apex Court in the matter of Manipal Academy of Higher Education v. Provident Fund Commissioner [2008] 5 SCC 428. The Apex Court in the matter of Karnataka State Financial Corpn.'s case (supra) has also held that the Court shall not construe a provision leaning in favour of such deprivation. This principle laid down by their Lordships of the Apex Court would come to rescue to the situation at hand inasmuch as if the preliminary objection of respondent No. 3 is to be upheld then right of appeal conferred by section 483 would be rendered redundant depriving a litigant of such a statutory right of appeal. The aforesaid observation of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be apposite to consider the judgment in the matter of Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd.'s case (supra). In the said case a petition under section 166 of the Companies Act, 1913 was presented by a creditor of Punjab Cotton Press Co. Ltd. and High Court ordered the Company to be compulsorily wound up. The proceedings in the winding up were being taken before Single Bench and certain orders were passed and eventually those orders were challenged in an appeal. Under clause X of the Letters Patent read with section 202 of the Companies Act, 1913. The issue of limitation arose before that court and the question which fell for consideration was 'whether the appeals were within limitation or barred by limitation'? When the question of maintainability coupled with question of limitation was raised the Learned Judges of the Division Bench referred the matter to a Bench of five Judges and the following questions were referred to the Larger Bench. (1) Does section 12 of the Limitation Act, govern an appeal preferred under section 202, the Companies Act, from an order of a single Judge exercising original jurisdiction where the forum of appeal (as distinct from the right of appeal) is provided b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt under clause X of the Letters Patent. It was further noted that if the matter in winding up was being dealt with by a Bench of two or more Judges no appeal would lie from such order to any Bench in any court of India but the aggrieved party may have to appeal to his Majesty-in-council in the same manner and subject to the conditions as laid down under section 109 of CPC. 16. Reverting back to situation obtaining in this case, we are at a loss to record that while putting forth the preliminary objection the Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 3 did not take any clue from the provisions of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khandpith Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 as also clause X of the Letters Patent contained in section 4 Chapter 4 (at page 352) of High Court Rules and Orders by Jindal. A perusal of section 2 of the Adhiniyam, 2005 and clause X of the Letters Patent clearly reveals that against orders passed by a Single Bench in the course of original jurisdiction, an appeal is provided to the Division Bench. It would be apt to note that now clause X is controlled by section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure introduced with effect from 1-7-2002 prohibiting an appeal from any ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning the appeal does not arise and the question of limitation has to be determined by us first, as narrated in Lacchman Singh v. Hazara Singh [2008] 5 SCC 444 and K.S. Nanji & Co. v. Jatashankar Dossa AIR 1961 SC 1474 and Commr. Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara v. Labour Court [2009] 3 SCC 525. 18. The aforesaid submission of counsel for respondent No. 3 has been seriously opposed by the Learned Counsel for the appellant and it was submitted that the certified copy was applied on 11-5-2009 and the copy was delivered on 9-10-2009, similarly the copy of order dated 19-8-2009 was also delivered along with the same copy and regarding the order dated 8-10-2009 the certified copy was applied on 9-10-2009 and was received on 12-10-2009 and the appeal was filed on 22-10-2009, therefore, even under Article 117 the appeal is within limitation, after excluding the time spent in obtaining the certified copy as envisaged by section 12(2) of the Limitation Act. 19. After considering the rival submission made we are of the considered opinion that the Full Bench Judgment in the matter of Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd.'s case (supra) is an authority for the proposition that provisions of section 12 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2-9-2008 by the Official Liquidator recommending confirmation of sale in favour of respondent No. 3. 22. We would refer to the date of invitation of public notice dated 25-2-2008 to ascertain the bona fides and the genuineness of the parties with which they had come to the court. The appellant has furnished his address as village Agety, Tehsil Nacha in District Patyala Punjab. Undisputedly the public notice issued on 25-2-2008 was published in Dainik Bhaskar - Indore and Bhopal edition. It was also published in Punjab Kesri (Hindi Edition) having circulation in all editions in the State of Punjab and Haryana. The pubic notice was also published in Economic Times - Mumbai, Delhi and Ahmedabad edition. The public notice was also published in a newspaper called Jagwani (in Gurumukhi Language) in all its editions having circulation in entire State of Punjab and Haryana. The public notice was also published in the Tribune (English) all editions in Punjab and Haryana; all editions in M.P., Nai-Duniya having circulation in Indore, Gwalior, Bhopal, Jabalpur, Bilaspur, Raipur. It was also published in the Hindu all editions, having circulation in Chennai, Coiambatore, Madurai, Tiruchirapal....