TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 1102
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Bench Officer "reviewing" his decision to register a caveat (leading thus to an order dated 12.9.2013) is a nullity in law. The petitioners claimed to have filed a caveat before the CLB on 10.9.13 in Vikram Bakshi v. Connaught Plaza Restaurants for notice of any hearings scheduled to take place in the matter, and for the provision of all documents tendered by the parties to the CLB. In the caveat application under Section 148A, CPC, at paragraphs 4-14, the caveat petitioners also sought to establish their interest in the matter, as also indicating an intention to request from impleadment as an intervenor. In addition, the petitioners also requested the Court to issue guidelines for the issuance of caveats generally, as it was argued that the practice was largely incoherent and inconsistent. With regard to the matter in Vikram Bakshi, the writ petition had claimed that the CLB heard the matter and made orders without the requisite papers being served or made available to the caveators. It is argued that on 11.9.2013, one of the parties before the CLB indicated refusal to serve a copy of the petition to caveators on saying that they were not respondents. Subsequent to this, it i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t deprive the Court of its power to pass an order even if the caveator was not informed of the dale of hearing of the matter. As the lodgement of a caveat is merely a right to be informed of the hearing date and it has no effect by way of curtailing the powers of a Civil Court to pass an appropriate order on the merits of the case, I hold that the order passed in this case on 30th October, 1980 is not without jurisdiction and is, therefore, operative till it is set aside in appropriate proceedings." A similar view was taken in K. Rajasekaran v K. Sakunthala & Ors 2008(5) CTC 319 and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan & Ors v. M.L. Mudgal 1995 AIHC 2793. 8. This Court agrees with the above view as a general proposition of law, that the failure to provide notice under Section 148A does not, ipso facto, render the order a nullity. Here, one must also see whether any special prejudice has been caused to the caveator apart from the mere fact of not being served, which is in itself insufficient to vitiate the entire proceedings. In the present case, quite apart from the fact that no order has been made against the caveators, they have not disclose any special damage or prejudice caused to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petition, however, he is claiming himself as a Prospective Respondent through his intervening application. Since Sh. Deepak Khosla, advocate is not party to the petition and the petitioner as per the* statement of Petitioners Counsels M/s Amar Chand & Mangaldas & Suresh A. & Co. have not sought any relief against him, a copy of the Petition not required to be served on him at this stage. Submitted for Orders Please." Previously, it is argued that the Bench Officer had issued directions to serve papers under the caveat, and that this change in stand calls for the interference of this Court. For this, Mr. Khosla relies on the following observations made by the Bench Officer on 10.9.2013: "After scrutinizing the petition, I vide letter dated 10.9.2013, requested M/s Amar Chand & Mangaldas & Suresh A. & Co. to serve a copy of the petition/Notice on the Caveators, i.e. Sh. Dua Associates and Sh. Deepak Khosla." Secondly, Mr. Khosla argues that the Bench Officer, by registering the caveat without demur, has also now reviewed his earlier grant of prayer (b) of the caveat petition also, which read as follows: "(b) To grant hearing before refusal to register the caveat." Furthermor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ues that are claimed to have arisen in the proceedings. Next, it is argued that this Court erred in appreciating what is a "nullity" in law, and how it is to be challenged. The refusal of a Court to allow a writ petition on the grounds of availability of an alternative remedy cannot - and does not ever - extend to petitions which challenge (so-called) orders which are a "nullity" in law. For this, learned counsel relied on various decisions of the Supreme Court, including Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340, Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad, (2007) 2 SCC 355, and Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India and Ors., 2011 (13) SCALE 584, to argue that orders which ignore binding precedent, and are per incuriam, are nullities from the very day they were passed. It was argued that such orders do not have the force of law, and are thus, to be ignored. Further, as regards the observations of this Court in paragraph 10 of the judgment sought to be reviewed (concerning the fact that the Judicial Member of the CLB was impleaded, apart from the CLB itself), and reliance placed on the decisions in Fakeerappa and Anr. v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory and Ors,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Section 10-E of the Companies Act. These regulations provide for various situations with respect to filing or presentation of petitions and matters before the CLB, their listing, orders to be made, etc. Regulation 32 empowers the Bench officer- subject to general or special directions- to decide upon routine matters pertaining to scrutiny and processing of the petitions and applications filed before the CLB. Some of these determinations are appellable to the Bench, under Section 32 (2). Now, there is no specific provision with regard to applicability of Section 148-A of the CPC. Therefore, the petitioners contend that the CLB should be directed to frame regulations in that regard. A look at the 1991 Regulations would clarify that they cater to specific class of proceedings; there is no indication regarding applicability of provisions pertaining to caveats. Yet, Regulation 44 entitles the Bench of the CLB, in the given facts of any particular case to make such orders as it may deem expedient to secure the ends of justice: "Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Bench to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of jus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is incorrect, and that the rulings in the above cases can be differentiated on the ground that there is a distinction between cases where notice to the caveator is not given inadvertently and where the caveat is removed by an order (as is allegedly the case here, on the basis of the note-sheets produced along with the present review petition) is unpersuasive. Neither the dictum in the Reserve Bank of India Employees Association (supra) ("The powers of a Civil Court are too sacrosanct to be allowed to be diluted or to be curtailed by a mere remote implication. I, therefore, hold that as there is no specific provision declaring any action taken by the Court contrary to its mandatory duty under Sub-section (3) to give a notice would be void, the order passed by the Court below on 30-10-1980 is not a nullity. In other words, it appears to me that the mere lodgement of a caveat would not deprive the Court of its power to pass an order even if the caveator was not informed of the dale of hearing of the matter.), nor any other authority supports such a proposition. Quite to the contrary, it stands to reason that if the absence of a notice in an admitted caveat is not fatal to those procee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt has recognized some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, i.e., where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case, Titagarh Paper Mills case and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation." Indeed, just as the petitioners argue that the remedy for a party aggrieved by the registration of a caveat is an appeal under Regulation 32 (2) of the Company Law Board Rules, the remedy for the petitioners themselves again....