Rasayanik Kamdar Sangh vs Sankalp Chemicals and Another

Jayant Patel, J.—As the facts are inter-connected in both the appeals, they are being considered by this common Judgment.

O.J. Appeal No. 70 of 2010 arises from the order dated 29.6.2010 passed by the learned Company Judge, whereby the application for being impleaded as party in the petition for revival of the company being Company Petition No. 23 of 2011 has not been entertained.

Upon hearing Mr. Ramnandan Singh, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Godiawala, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 and Ms. Amee Yajnik, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2, it appears that the learned Company Judge, by impugned order, has not foreclosed the right of the Appellant Union for all time to come in connection with objecting or resisting with the Company Petition No. 23 of 2010 for revival of the company. As such, when the Company Petition is for revival of the company under the companies Act, in response to the advertisement or otherwise before final hearing, any party affected thereby can submit the objections and such objections are required to be examined at the time when the Company Court is finally to decide as to whether the revival of the company should be permitted or not.

Hence, we find that the aforesaid aspect is taken care of by the learned Company Judge and no interference is called for with the impugned order of the learned Company Judge.

So far as O.J. Appeal No. 55 of 2010 is concerned, the same arises against the order dated 27.7.2010 passed by the learned Company Judge in Company Application No. 196 of 2010, whereby the application has not been entertained at this stage.

Upon hearing Mr. Ramnandan Singh, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Ms. Amee Yajnik, learned Counsel for the Official Liquidator, it appears that the matter is at large pending before the Company Judge being Company Petition No. 23 of 2010 for revival of the company or otherwise.

Under these circumstances, the learned Company Judge has observed that until that question is finalized, the offer of one of the interested buyers for purchase of the land namely; Max Developers should not be considered at this stage, but the learned Company Judge has reserved liberty to the applicant to move this Court in case this Court does not sanction the scheme proposed by the Petitioner company in Company Petition No. 23 of 2010.

In our view, the discretion cannot be said to be erroneously exercised by the learned Company Judge.

However, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that the workers are suffering on account of the dilatory tactics on the part of the company under the guise of the revival scheme and it was also submitted that if the sale has not taken place of any of the properties of the company, workers will not get any amount and, therefore, the workers were interested to see that the offer made by one of the interested persons may be considered by the Sale Committee by convening the meeting of the Sale Committee.

It appears to us that it would be for the Workers'' Union to raise objections in Company Petition No. 23 of 2010, as already permitted by the learned Company Judge in the proceedings of Company Application No. 141 of 2010 and thereafter, the applicant can pray the learned Company Judge to decide the Company Petition No. 23 of 2010 at an early date by pointing out the circumstances that on account of the delay, the workers are suffering etc.

Subject to the aforesaid observations, no interference is called for. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed.