Full Text
Translation output
% 05.07.2011
Present: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate for appellant.
+
*
+
*
Co. Appl. 1092/2011 in Co.Appl. (SB) 39/2011
(Radhey K Gupta vs. Heritage Inn Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, application stands disposed of.
Co.Appl. (SB) 39/2011& Co. Appl. 1091/2011
(Radhey K Gupta vs. Heritage Inn Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.)
Present appeal has been filed under Section 10-F of the Companies
Act, 1956 (for short 'Act') against the order dated 301 h June, 2011 passed by the Company Law Board (in short 'CLB'), Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby appellant's applications for impleadment and for grant of interim order were dismissed on the sole ground that the appellant-applicant has no locus standi to file the applications.
However, no reasons have been given in the impugned order, as to why the appellant-applicant has no locus standi to file the applications.
The Supreme Court in a number of cases has held that every quasi- judicial order must be supported by reasons, as reasons are the link between the order and the mind of its maker. In fact, it has been held that the conclusion of a quasi-judicial authority must be fair and just and for ensuring this, it must record reasons which would show the ultimate mental process leading from the dispute to its resolution.
2011:DHC:14311
I' i l
In the present case, the impugned order is bereft of any details and it is impossible to make out as to why the appellant has no locus, especially when ,the appellant's case is that the respondent company is a quasi partnership and the appellant is a minority shareholder.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and CLB is directed to rehear and pass a reasoned order with regard to the appellant's impleadment and interim applications.
For this purpose, list the matter before CLB on 12th July, 2011 at
2:30p.m.
Mr. Jagjit Singh, learned counsel for appellant is directed to intimate the next date of hearing to all the learned counsel appearing in the present case before the CLB.
Needless to say, the removal, if any, of the appellant as Director of the respondent-company shall be subject to further orders to be passed by the CLB.
With the aforesaid observations, present appeal and pending application are disposed of.
JULY 05, 2011
JS
\\J
MANMOHAN,J
2011:DHC:14311
Present: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate for appellant.
+
*
+
*
Co. Appl. 1092/2011 in Co.Appl. (SB) 39/2011
(Radhey K Gupta vs. Heritage Inn Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, application stands disposed of.
Co.Appl. (SB) 39/2011& Co. Appl. 1091/2011
(Radhey K Gupta vs. Heritage Inn Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.)
Present appeal has been filed under Section 10-F of the Companies
Act, 1956 (for short 'Act') against the order dated 301 h June, 2011 passed by the Company Law Board (in short 'CLB'), Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby appellant's applications for impleadment and for grant of interim order were dismissed on the sole ground that the appellant-applicant has no locus standi to file the applications.
However, no reasons have been given in the impugned order, as to why the appellant-applicant has no locus standi to file the applications.
The Supreme Court in a number of cases has held that every quasi- judicial order must be supported by reasons, as reasons are the link between the order and the mind of its maker. In fact, it has been held that the conclusion of a quasi-judicial authority must be fair and just and for ensuring this, it must record reasons which would show the ultimate mental process leading from the dispute to its resolution.
2011:DHC:14311
I' i l
In the present case, the impugned order is bereft of any details and it is impossible to make out as to why the appellant has no locus, especially when ,the appellant's case is that the respondent company is a quasi partnership and the appellant is a minority shareholder.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and CLB is directed to rehear and pass a reasoned order with regard to the appellant's impleadment and interim applications.
For this purpose, list the matter before CLB on 12th July, 2011 at
2:30p.m.
Mr. Jagjit Singh, learned counsel for appellant is directed to intimate the next date of hearing to all the learned counsel appearing in the present case before the CLB.
Needless to say, the removal, if any, of the appellant as Director of the respondent-company shall be subject to further orders to be passed by the CLB.
With the aforesaid observations, present appeal and pending application are disposed of.
JULY 05, 2011
JS
\\J
MANMOHAN,J
2011:DHC:14311
JUDGMENT