Full Text
Translation output
15 r-/
•I't '
Lr'r- A-48 & 50 19.08.2011 i Present: Mr.Hari Nand Vashisht, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.M.L. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.
CM (M) No. 961/2011. CAV No.745/2011 & CM Nos 15433-
34/2011 CM (M) No. 963/2011 & CM Nos 15437-38/2011
Order impugned before this Court is the order dated
25.02.2011 passed by the Company Law Board (CLB), Principal
Bench, New Delhi whereby the two applications i.e. CA
No.642/2008 and CA No. 643/2008 filed in Company Petitions NO. 67/ND/2008 and 68/ND/2008 under Regulations 44 of the Company
Law Board Regulations, 1991 read with Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 had been dismissed.
Record shows that a petition for oppression and mismanagement had been filed by the petitioner under Sections
397 & 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. This was on 03.10.2008.
The present application had been filed by the non- applicant/petitioner before the CLB on 01.12.2008; contention was that there was a valid arbitration agreement existing between the parties dated 17.07.2008 upon which the Arbitrator Tilak Raj had passed his award dated 25.07.2007; parties had settled their disputes in terms of the aforenoted Award and the Award has also since been implemented; the petition under Sections 397 & 398 of
2011:DHC:7440 the Companies Act was not maintainable; he had sought a dismissal of this petition. This was vide his applications i.e. CA
No.642/2008 and CA No. 643/2008. This contention of the petitioner had been rejected. The document which is the alleged
'Samjhota' or inter-se agreement between Pawan Kumar Goyal, Satish Kumar Goyal and Subhash Chander Goyal is dated
17.07.2007; this aforenoted settlement had been arrived at o-O pursuant to a criminal complaintjwhich had been made by Pawan / .. , Kumar Goyal and/Subhash—Goyal; in .terms of this v-
.•o- document which had been recorded in the Police Station and witnessed by the concerned SHO of the said Police Station, parties had agreed that Tilak Raj Gupta, their brother in law and Hukam
Chand Bansal another respectable person will decide their inter-se disputes. The so called Award dated 25.07.2007 is at page 68 of , jV the paper book. It doGsJ-^iol^ear the signatures of Hukam Chandv
Bansal. Admittedly the two companies i.e. Sona-Castings Pvt. Ltd.
^ and Chandigarh Castings Pvt. Ltd. were not parties to this so called agreement dated 17.07.2007; there is no dispute that a company is a distinct legal entity and has a distinct legal -persona. All these facts had been noted in the correct perspective, by the Company
Law Board. The details have in fact been noted in para 9 of the impugned order. The applications of the petitioner had accordingly been dismissed and he had been granted opportunity to file detailed response to the pending petitions under Sections 397 &
398 of the Companies Act. This order in no manner calls for any interference; parties are yet to go for trial and beside the permission granted to the petitioner to file his detailed response, opportunity will also be afforded to lead their evidence. This is clear from the provisions of Section 10-E (4C) of the Companies
Act 1956 which gives power to the Company Law Board to exercise all such powers which are vested in a Court under the
Code of Civil Procedure; discovery and inspection of documents, enforcing the attendance of witnesses, compelling production of documents, examination of witnesses on oath, reception of evidence on affidavits is all a procedure which can be resorted to by the Company Law Board. Impugned order in no manner suffers from any infirmity.
Dismissed.
AUGUST 19, 2011 a INDERMEET KAUR, J.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M) 961/2011
CHANDIGARH CASTINGS PVT LTD & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr.Abhay K.Das, Adv.
•I't '
Lr'r- A-48 & 50 19.08.2011 i Present: Mr.Hari Nand Vashisht, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.M.L. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.
CM (M) No. 961/2011. CAV No.745/2011 & CM Nos 15433-
34/2011 CM (M) No. 963/2011 & CM Nos 15437-38/2011
Order impugned before this Court is the order dated
25.02.2011 passed by the Company Law Board (CLB), Principal
Bench, New Delhi whereby the two applications i.e. CA
No.642/2008 and CA No. 643/2008 filed in Company Petitions NO. 67/ND/2008 and 68/ND/2008 under Regulations 44 of the Company
Law Board Regulations, 1991 read with Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 had been dismissed.
Record shows that a petition for oppression and mismanagement had been filed by the petitioner under Sections
397 & 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. This was on 03.10.2008.
The present application had been filed by the non- applicant/petitioner before the CLB on 01.12.2008; contention was that there was a valid arbitration agreement existing between the parties dated 17.07.2008 upon which the Arbitrator Tilak Raj had passed his award dated 25.07.2007; parties had settled their disputes in terms of the aforenoted Award and the Award has also since been implemented; the petition under Sections 397 & 398 of
2011:DHC:7440 the Companies Act was not maintainable; he had sought a dismissal of this petition. This was vide his applications i.e. CA
No.642/2008 and CA No. 643/2008. This contention of the petitioner had been rejected. The document which is the alleged
'Samjhota' or inter-se agreement between Pawan Kumar Goyal, Satish Kumar Goyal and Subhash Chander Goyal is dated
17.07.2007; this aforenoted settlement had been arrived at o-O pursuant to a criminal complaintjwhich had been made by Pawan / .. , Kumar Goyal and/Subhash—Goyal; in .terms of this v-
.•o- document which had been recorded in the Police Station and witnessed by the concerned SHO of the said Police Station, parties had agreed that Tilak Raj Gupta, their brother in law and Hukam
Chand Bansal another respectable person will decide their inter-se disputes. The so called Award dated 25.07.2007 is at page 68 of , jV the paper book. It doGsJ-^iol^ear the signatures of Hukam Chandv
Bansal. Admittedly the two companies i.e. Sona-Castings Pvt. Ltd.
^ and Chandigarh Castings Pvt. Ltd. were not parties to this so called agreement dated 17.07.2007; there is no dispute that a company is a distinct legal entity and has a distinct legal -persona. All these facts had been noted in the correct perspective, by the Company
Law Board. The details have in fact been noted in para 9 of the impugned order. The applications of the petitioner had accordingly been dismissed and he had been granted opportunity to file detailed response to the pending petitions under Sections 397 &
398 of the Companies Act. This order in no manner calls for any interference; parties are yet to go for trial and beside the permission granted to the petitioner to file his detailed response, opportunity will also be afforded to lead their evidence. This is clear from the provisions of Section 10-E (4C) of the Companies
Act 1956 which gives power to the Company Law Board to exercise all such powers which are vested in a Court under the
Code of Civil Procedure; discovery and inspection of documents, enforcing the attendance of witnesses, compelling production of documents, examination of witnesses on oath, reception of evidence on affidavits is all a procedure which can be resorted to by the Company Law Board. Impugned order in no manner suffers from any infirmity.
Dismissed.
AUGUST 19, 2011 a INDERMEET KAUR, J.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M) 961/2011
CHANDIGARH CASTINGS PVT LTD & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr.Abhay K.Das, Adv.
VERSUS
SATISH KUMAR GOEL & ORS Respondents
Through Mr. M.L. Sharma, Adv.
Through Mr. M.L. Sharma, Adv.
CM(M) 963/2011
SONA CASTINGS PVT LTD & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr.Abhay K.Das, Adv.
SONA CASTINGS PVT LTD & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr.Abhay K.Das, Adv.
VERSUS
SATISH KUMAR GOEL & ORS Respondents
Through Mr. M.L. Sharma, Adv.
Through Mr. M.L. Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
09.05.2012 CM No. 6135/2012 in CMOM) 961/2011
CM No. 6134/2012 in CM(M) 963/2011 On an advance notice, counsel for the non-applicant has put in appearance. The typographical errors noted in the applications are permitted to be corrected and 9'^ line on the second page of the order shall read as
INDERMEET KAUR, J MAY 09, 2012 rb 'Satish Kumar Goel' instead of 'Subhash Chander Goyal' so also the 9"" line from below onthe same pagetheword 'not' shall be omitted; corrections are made in the court.
Applications are disposed of.
09.05.2012 CM No. 6135/2012 in CMOM) 961/2011
CM No. 6134/2012 in CM(M) 963/2011 On an advance notice, counsel for the non-applicant has put in appearance. The typographical errors noted in the applications are permitted to be corrected and 9'^ line on the second page of the order shall read as
INDERMEET KAUR, J MAY 09, 2012 rb 'Satish Kumar Goel' instead of 'Subhash Chander Goyal' so also the 9"" line from below onthe same pagetheword 'not' shall be omitted; corrections are made in the court.
Applications are disposed of.
JUDGMENT