AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Indermeet Kaur, J.
Co. Appl. No. 1933/2012 (Exemption) in Co. Pet. 11/1999
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Co. Appl. Nos. 1931/2012 (Review petition under Order XLVII of the CPC seeking review of the order dated 13.09.2012) and 1932/2012
(Under Section 151 read with Rule 9 of the Companies Act for recall of order dated 13.09.2012) in Co. Pet. 11/1999
These two applications seek a review and recall of order dated 13.09.2012; submission being that the parties were in fact negotiating possibility of
a settlement and this has been recorded by an order of the Division Bench on 19.10.2005 as also a subsequent order dated 22.05.2006; in this
scenario, the impugned order holding that the winding up petition is not maintainable suffers from a material irregularity which entitles the petitioner
to a review and recall of the order dated 13.09.2012. The orders of the Division Bench relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner
dated 19.10.2005 & 22.05.2006 have been perused. It is not in dispute that a suit for declaration has been filed by the respondent seeking a
declaration to the effect that a sum of Rs. 4.10 crores has been paid to the petitioner in full and final settlement of his claim. In fact in the impugned
order, the Court had noted that on the earlier date i.e. on 31.08.2012, the petitioner had taken time to take instructions as to whether she wishes
to pursue this winding up petition or not.
Parameters of review are contained in Order XLVII of the Code of the Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). Unless and until
there is a glaring mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or some evidence has crept in which even after exercise of due diligence was
not within the knowledge of the appellant at the time when the impugned order was passed, a ground for review is not made out. None of the
averments now made before this Court fit into the parameters of Order XLVII of the Code.
An oral submission has been made that on the date when the impugned order has been passed, counsel for the petitioner was not available for
the reason that her nephew was hospitalized. This does not find mention in the aforenoted two applications.
The impugned order has noted that when there are disputed questions of facts for which the evidence and trial is required, a winding up petition
is not maintainable. No ground for review. Dismissed.