'NON-REPORTABLE'
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 2814-2815 OF 2015
(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.33342-43 of 2014)
BARANAGORE JUTE FACTORY PLC. ...Appellant (s)
versus
SHREEKISHAN OMPRAKASH
AND ANOTHER ...Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2816 OF 2015
(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.24871 of 2014)
YASHDEEP TREXIM PRIVATE LTD. ...Appellant (s)
versus
BARANAGORE JUTE FACTORY PLC.
(IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
M.Y. Eqbal, J.:
Leave granted.
2. These appeals by Special Leave have been filed against the impugned
order dated 14.8.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High
Court in ACO No.38 of 2014 and APOT No. 230 of 2014 in CP. No.2 of 1987.
By the impugned order, the Division Bench affirmed the order dated
20.2.2014 passed by the Company Judge in T.A. No. 125 of 2012 on an
application filed by the appellant praying for a direction to make over the
money deposited with the Registrar, Original Side of the Calcutta High
Court in terms of earlier order dated 23.2.2011 together with the interest
to the appellant.
3. A perusal of the order dated 20th February, 2014 would show that
there are nine applications including one made by a Judges' Summons taken
out by M/s. L.P. Agrawalla & Co. praying for directions to make over to the
applicant the money lying deposited in terms of the order dated 23rd
February, 2011. The Company Judge noticed that the application in which
the order dated 23rd February, 2011 was passed is still pending and the
application to obtain an order of refund is seriously under challenge in
one of the pending nine applications. The Company Judge, therefore, was of
the view that the proper course would be to dispose of all the applications
in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The Division bench while affirming the order passed by the Company
Judge observed as under:-
"Considering the amount of deposit which the appellants want to withdraw,
and the company's indebtness to its various creditors and the quantum of
its liability, coupled with the facts that even the workers have not been
paid their dues, we do not feel it safe to allow a particular group of
shareholders, who are described as interloper by the creditors, to withdraw
the money deposited with the Registrar, Original Side of this Court without
deciding the said issue finally particularly when we find that the
appellant/applicant themselves have filed an application being C.A. No.957
of 2010 praying for permanent stay of the company petition No.2 of 1987
which is yet to be decided finally. In the aforesaid context, we do not
find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Company
Court proposing to dispose of all the pending applications simultaneously."
5. We have heard Mr. Harish N. Salve and Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned
senior counsel appearing for the respective appellant. We have also heard
Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Mr. Sanjeev Sen, Mr. Amit
Sibal and Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents/intervenors.
6. It has been brought to our notice that the impugned order dated
14.8.2014 was earlier challenged in SLP (C) No.29330 of 2014 (@ SLP CC
No.16278/2014). The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn
on 27.10.2014 by passing the following order.
"Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner,
seeks permission to withdraw this petition with a liberty to move the
Company Judge to dispose of the pending matters as expeditiously as
possible. Therefore, in view of the fair submission made by the learned
senior counsel, we dismiss this special leave petition as withdrawn with a
request to the Company Judge to dispose of the pending matters as
expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from
today."
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion
that the Company Judge before whom all applications are pending should
dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible within a period of two
months from today.
8. With the aforesaid direction, appeals are disposed of with no orders
as to costs. All interlocutory applications including impleadment
petitions also stand disposed of.
..................................J.
[ M.Y. Eqbal ]
..................................J
[Amitava Roy]
New Delhi
March 12, 2015
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 2814-2815 OF 2015
(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.33342-43 of 2014)
BARANAGORE JUTE FACTORY PLC. ...Appellant (s)
versus
SHREEKISHAN OMPRAKASH
AND ANOTHER ...Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2816 OF 2015
(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.24871 of 2014)
YASHDEEP TREXIM PRIVATE LTD. ...Appellant (s)
versus
BARANAGORE JUTE FACTORY PLC.
(IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
M.Y. Eqbal, J.:
Leave granted.
2. These appeals by Special Leave have been filed against the impugned
order dated 14.8.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High
Court in ACO No.38 of 2014 and APOT No. 230 of 2014 in CP. No.2 of 1987.
By the impugned order, the Division Bench affirmed the order dated
20.2.2014 passed by the Company Judge in T.A. No. 125 of 2012 on an
application filed by the appellant praying for a direction to make over the
money deposited with the Registrar, Original Side of the Calcutta High
Court in terms of earlier order dated 23.2.2011 together with the interest
to the appellant.
3. A perusal of the order dated 20th February, 2014 would show that
there are nine applications including one made by a Judges' Summons taken
out by M/s. L.P. Agrawalla & Co. praying for directions to make over to the
applicant the money lying deposited in terms of the order dated 23rd
February, 2011. The Company Judge noticed that the application in which
the order dated 23rd February, 2011 was passed is still pending and the
application to obtain an order of refund is seriously under challenge in
one of the pending nine applications. The Company Judge, therefore, was of
the view that the proper course would be to dispose of all the applications
in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The Division bench while affirming the order passed by the Company
Judge observed as under:-
"Considering the amount of deposit which the appellants want to withdraw,
and the company's indebtness to its various creditors and the quantum of
its liability, coupled with the facts that even the workers have not been
paid their dues, we do not feel it safe to allow a particular group of
shareholders, who are described as interloper by the creditors, to withdraw
the money deposited with the Registrar, Original Side of this Court without
deciding the said issue finally particularly when we find that the
appellant/applicant themselves have filed an application being C.A. No.957
of 2010 praying for permanent stay of the company petition No.2 of 1987
which is yet to be decided finally. In the aforesaid context, we do not
find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Company
Court proposing to dispose of all the pending applications simultaneously."
5. We have heard Mr. Harish N. Salve and Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned
senior counsel appearing for the respective appellant. We have also heard
Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Mr. Sanjeev Sen, Mr. Amit
Sibal and Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents/intervenors.
6. It has been brought to our notice that the impugned order dated
14.8.2014 was earlier challenged in SLP (C) No.29330 of 2014 (@ SLP CC
No.16278/2014). The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn
on 27.10.2014 by passing the following order.
"Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner,
seeks permission to withdraw this petition with a liberty to move the
Company Judge to dispose of the pending matters as expeditiously as
possible. Therefore, in view of the fair submission made by the learned
senior counsel, we dismiss this special leave petition as withdrawn with a
request to the Company Judge to dispose of the pending matters as
expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from
today."
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion
that the Company Judge before whom all applications are pending should
dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible within a period of two
months from today.
8. With the aforesaid direction, appeals are disposed of with no orders
as to costs. All interlocutory applications including impleadment
petitions also stand disposed of.
..................................J.
[ M.Y. Eqbal ]
..................................J
[Amitava Roy]
New Delhi
March 12, 2015
