Rajasthan Hospitals Ltd v. S.S. Agarwal DATE OF ORDER & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
instant company appeal stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Companies Act, 2013 ss. 10(F), 397, 398, 399, 402
Judgment
04/08/2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI *** Mr. RK Salecha, for appellant. Mr. Amod Kasliwal, for respondents Instant Company Appeal has been filed u/s 10 (F) of the Companies Act, 1956 assailing the interim order passed by the Company Law board dt. 12/08/2008. It has been alleged in the appeal that the petition u/s 397, 398, 399 and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 was filed by the respondents before the Company Law Board alleging acts of oppression and mismanagement and made certain prayers which have been referred to in the present appeal in Para NO.1, which is being reproduced herein:- “(a)setting aside and quashing the allotment of 9,50,000 equity shares of Rs.10/- each shown to have been allotted to Dr. G.L. Purohit on
28.12.2006 by the respondent No.1 Company. (g)restrain the Respondent No.2 and other Respondents to from selling, alienating and disposing off the fixed assets of the Respondent No.1 Company. (h)restrain the Respondent No.2 from exercising the voting rights in respect of 9,50,000 Equity Shares illegally allotted to the Respondent No.2.” 2 Com. Appeal-03/08 It appears from the record that after the notices were served of the Company Petition No.CP53(ND)/98) and the matter came up before the Company Law Board, at that stage, the appellant (respondent before the Company Law Board) sought time to file reply. At that stage, the request appears to have been made by the appellant before the Company Law Board to safeguard their interests during the intervening period and taking note thereof, an interim order was passed by the Company Law Board on 12/08/2008.
Operative part
Counsel for the respondent Mr. Kasliwal has placed before the Court an order later on passed on 10/12/2008 and that appears to have been passed after the reply and rejoinder being filed by the parties and the pleadings, as informed to this Court are complete. Counsel for appellant submits that without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing, the order, which was passed by the Board on 12/08/2008 and interim relief that has been granted to the respondents vide order impugned, appears to be the final relief which could have been considered only after hearing the parties and that appears to be a reason for which the appellant has approached this Court. After the reply and rejoinder being filed, if the present appellant was aggrieved by the 3 Com. Appeal-03/08 interim order passed by the Company Law Board, he was at liberty to file application for clarification/modification of the interim order impugned in the instant appeal dt. 12/08/2008 and in the considered opinion of this Court, the interim order impugned did not raise any legal question which requires to be examined within the limited scope of Sec.10-F of the Companies Act. Consequently, this Court does not find any substance in the instant appeal, however, considers it appropriate to grant liberty to the appellant to file application for review/modification of the interim order, if so advised and if such an application is filed, it is expected from the Company Law Board to examine and decide the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the respective parties in accordance with law. With the above directions/observations, the instant company appeal stands disposed of. [AJAY RASTOGI], J.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: instant company appeal stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Companies Act, 2013 — ss. 10(F), 397, 398, 399, 402.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 04 Aug 2011. 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.