2001 (8) TMI 1441

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the important documents relied on by the respondents which has now been discovered to be a fabricated document. In addition she has also filed 3 other applications supporting the averments in CA No. 93 of 2001. 2. According to the applicant, one of the main grievances of the petitioner in the petition was that she did not receive the notice for the Board meeting allegedly held on 10-2-2000 in which various decisions oppressive to the petitioner were taken. In the Board Meeting held pursuant to the directions of this Bench on 3-4-2000, the respondents produced before the petitioner a copy of the receipt for the registered post allegedly sent by the company on 24-1-2000 for the meeting convened on 10-2-2000. In view of this, in para 10 of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r did not receive the notice, they should be declared to be null and void and if done so, the final directions given by this Bench in its order dated 12-1-2001 would require modification. Since the Bench had passed the impugned order on the basis of the fabricated document, it has all the powers to review its order as held by the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh AIR 2000 SC 1165 wherein the Supreme Court has observed "No court can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was wangled through fraud or mis-representation of such a dimension as would reflect the very basis of the claim". Accordingly, she prayed for recalling the order dated 12-1-2001 and passi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... submitted that respondent No. 9 who has purchased the shares of the other shareholders for valuable consideration has also invested huge amount of money in the company for repayment of various loans taken by the company before the acquisition of shares and as such any review of the order already passed by the Bench would be detrimental to the interest of his clients. Further, if any fault has been committed as alleged by the petitioner in regard to the registered letter, the 9th respondent cannot be held responsible inasmuch as at that point of time, his clients were not in the management of the company. Therefore, he submitted that taking into consideration that the CLB have no powers to review its own orders, the application should be di....