TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 1202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the submissions of the parties, the petitioners therein would be directed to serve the copy of the petition to the caveators and they would be heard before passing any orders in the company petition. 4. The petitioners challenged the order dated 12th September, 2013 before this Court in writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.5889/2013, which was listed before DB-V on 16th September, 2013 when it was adjourned to 10th October, 2013. The first prayer made in the said petition is that the order dated 12th September, 2013 passed by the Company Law Board be declared as nullity. 5. On 16th September, 2013, the Member (Judicial) of Company Law Board heard the arguments of the petitioners therein and listed the matter for arguments of the respondents therein for 25th September, 2013 and, in the meantime, directed the status quo to be maintained with respect to the shareholding, board pattern and right of call option. 6. According to the petitioners, the order dated 16th September, 2013 passed by the Member (Judicial) amounts to review of the order dated 12th September, 2013 because neither the copy of the petition was served nor the petitioners were heard before passing the order dated 16....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... India or special leave petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was stopped. We are strongly deprecating such a practice." (Emphasis supplied) 9. In Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory, (2004) 2 SCC 473, the Supreme Court held that impleadment of the High Court of Karnataka and Supreme Court by the petitioner was held to be gross abuse of process of law. The Supreme Court held as under: "10. Before we part with the case we think it necessary to point out a somewhat shocking state of affairs which came to our notice. In the claim petition filed before the Tribunal, this Court and the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore were impleaded as respondents for no sensible reason, and in gross abuse of process of law, though by hindsight the absurdity seems to have been set right by ordering deletion. Though these parties were given up during adjudication, it is clear that the claim petition was filed without any application of mind by the counsel concerned as to who would be proper or necessary party or even a formal party and great sense of responsibility is expected to be exhibited by those concerned. At least while impleading a party in a claim petition, pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal against every order of Company Law Board. Petitioner No.2 submits that the remedy of appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act is not efficacious because in the event of being unsuccessful in the appeal, there is no further statutory appeal before the Division Bench whereas against the order in this writ petition, the petitioners have remedy of Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court. There is no merit whatsoever in this contention as the order under Section 10F of the Companies Act is appealable before the Division Bench of this Court. However, it may be added that even assuming there was no appeal against the order passed in appeal under Section 10F that would not by itself make the remedy of appeal under Section 10F as nonefficacious. The point to be considered by this Court is whether the remedy of appeal is efficacious. Non availability of further statutory appeal would not make the appeal non-efficacious. 15. Petitioner No.2 further submits that the remedy of appeal does not bar the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Petitioner No.2 further submits that since the impugned order is a nullity, it can be challenged in any proceedings and he refer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 1986 Act")? xxx xxx xxx 8. Shri SanjeevAnand, learned counsel for the appellant argued that even though the exercise of power by the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is not hedged with any limitation/constraint, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court committed serious error by entertaining the writ petition ignoring that the 1986 Act is a code unto itself and the remedy of appeal available against an order passed by the State Commission is an equally efficacious alternative remedy. 9. Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent 1 and Shri R.S. Suri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for pro forma Respondent 4 argued that even though their clients could have availed the remedy of appeal under Section 19 of the 1986 Act, the Division Bench of the High Court did not commit any error by entertaining the petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution because the directions given by the State Commission were ex facie beyond the scope of the 1986 Act. In support of this argument, ShriVaidyanathan relied upon the judgments of this Court in East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [AIR 1962 SC 18....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up." 13. In Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [(1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131] this Court observed: (SCC pp. 440-41, para 11) "11. … It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. This rule was stated with great clarity by Willes, J. inWolverhampton New Waterworks Co. v. Hawkesford [(1859) 6 CBNS 336 : 141 ER 486] in the following passage: (ER p. 495) „… There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon a statute. … But there is a third class viz. where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it. … The remedy provided by the statute must be fol....