AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi Malimath, J
This appeal is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 24.09.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in company petition No.141 of 1998.
The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge committed an error in dismissing his application (MCC No.719 of 2012); that the company court has wrongly interpreted the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956; and that the company court committed an error in holding that it is within the jurisdiction of the appellant to invoke the jurisdiction of a competent Civil Court for cancellation of the sale deed, hence, he pleads that appeal be allowed by setting aside the order of the company court and by allowing his application.
The same is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. They submit that there is no error committed by the company court which calls for an interference. Hence, the appeal is required to be rejected.
Heard learned counsels.
The appellant had filed Misc. Application (MCC No.719 of 2012) under Section 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. It was pleaded that consequent to the orders of winding up passed by the company court, the assets of the company were sold and the sale deed had been executed by the Official Liquidator in favour of M/s Shubham Enterprises to its so-called proprietor Shri Prashant Kumar Gupta. The same has been done fraudulently and, therefore, the sale deed requires to be cancelled. The company court was of the view that the applicant was unable to show any provision of law by which the same can be set aside other than the inherent powers of the court under Rule 9 of the Company Court Rules. Therefore, the company court was of the view that the only remedy to the applicant is to file a regular suit for cancellation of the sale deed under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act.
On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that the opinion of the learned Single Judge while rejecting the application may not be in tune with the provisions of law.
In our considered view, the learned Single Judge should have exercised his jurisdiction into determining the powers of the court to consider such an application and whether the court has powers under the Companies Act to entertain such an application. Since the learned company court has failed to do so, we are of the view that the application requires to be reconsidered. In view of the establishment of the National Company Law Tribunal, all such pending proceedings require to be transferred to it for adjudication, in accordance to law.
The learned counsels appearing for the appellant as well as the respondents have no objection for transferring this application for consideration before the tribunal.
Under these circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 24.09.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in company application (MCC No.719 of 2012) in company petition No.141 of 1998 (new no.1-A of 2001) is set aside. The application requires to be considered afresh on merits, in accordance with law.
Consequently, the application (MCC No.719 of 2012) in company petition no.141 of 1998 (new no.1-A of 2001) is transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, for determination, in accordance with law.
The tribunal shall not be influenced by any of the observations made by the learned Single Judge or by this Court's order. It shall consider the application on merits, in accordance with law and thereafter, pass an appropriate order.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly. To this effect the parties shall appear before the tribunal on 19.10.2020 without any further notice. The tribunal will, thereafter, consider the same, in accordance with law.
In view of the long pendency of the dispute, the tribunal is requested to dispose off the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of appearance.
Registry is directed to send the entire records to the tribunal.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off.