Judicature For Rajasthan Bench High Court · 2012
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Companies Act, 2013 s. 446
Judgment
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI *** Mr.Ashish Sharma, for applicant. Mr.Anuroop Singhi, for OL Instant company misc. application has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1-applicant u/Sec.446 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with R.9 of the Companies (Court) Rules for recalling the order dt.08/05/2006 passed in Company Misc. Application No.1/2002 (Official Liquidator Vs. Corporation Bank). Counsel for applicant submits that because of the matter being pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Court disposed of the Company Application No.1/2002 granting liberty to the parties to file application seeking modification of the order after the decision in B. Shoes Ltd. Vs. Indian Overseas Bank. Counsel submits that the matter, referred to supra, has been finally decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dt. 22/07/2010 and in view thereof, the order order dt.08/05/2006 passed in Company Misc. Application No.1/2002 (Official Liquidator Vs. Corporation Bank) deserves to be recalled and the Company Appli-45/2011 liberty may be granted to him to make submission on merits of the matter. In the light of the order of the Supreme Court dt. 22/07/2010 (supra), the order passed by the Court dt.08/05/2006 in Company Misc. Application No.1/2002 (Official Liquidator Vs. Corporation Bank) stands recalled and Company Misc. Application No.1/2002 (Official Liquidator Vs. Corporation Bank) may be listed for admission. The instant company misc. application in the above terms stands disposed of. Raghu/p.2/45-Company Appli-2011-Final.doc Certificate:-All corrections have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed/Raghu, PAJW [AJAY RASTOGI], J.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Companies Act, 2013 — s. 446.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 29 Mar 2012. The bench was AJAY RASTOGI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.