Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Review Petition (civil) 1083-1084 of 2003
PETITIONER:
M/s. J.P. Srivastava & Sons (Rampur) Pvt.Ltd.& Ors.
RESPONDENT:
M/s.Gwalior Sugar Company Ltd.& Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/03/2004
BENCH:
N.Santosh Hegde & B.P. Singh.
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4579-4580/2003
SANTOSH HEGDE,J.
While considering the above review petitions in Chambers
and while giving liberty of oral hearing to the parties we issued
notice on 27.8.2003 to the respondents on these review petitions.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Review petitions
are admitted.
After hearing the learned counsel we think it appropriate to
dispose of these review petitions finally. The learned counsel for the
petitioners submits while remanding the above appeals back to the
High Court, we had indicated that we will not be expressing any final
opinion on any of the issues involved in the said appeals. But while
perusing the copy of the judgment parties noticed that in regard to the
question of the authority of a single Member of the Company Law
Board to decide issues such as one that was involved in the case
before the Company Law Board, we had expressed our agreement
with the finding of the learned single Judge of the High Court which
according to the learned counsel was not intended since we had
decided to remand the matter back to the High Court for consideration
of issues not considered by the High Court in the impugned order.
The learned senior counsel for the respondents however
contended that this question was argued before this Court and the
finding given by us on the said question was not unintended but was a
finding given after hearing the parties concerned. Therefore, there is
no need to review the said order.
As could be seen from our order under review, the issue that
arose for consideration before the High Court was not only the
question of jurisdiction of a single member of the Company Law
Board to take up the matters sitting singly, but also other issues
involving various other questions. But the High Court decided only
the question of jurisdiction of the single Member of the Company
Law Board to entertain a petition without going into the other issues.
Therefore, while requiring the High Court to give a finding on all
other issues also which arose before it in the appeal, we think it was
not correct on our part to have expressed our views in regard to the
sole issue decided by the learned single Judge. While this Court on
remand need not go into the issue already decided by it, namely, the
jurisdiction of the single member to entertain a petition, we expect
the High Court to decide the other issues so that the aggrieved party
could take recourse to such remedy as is available to them in law. In
that process, we think the expression of a view by us as to the
correctness of the finding of the learned single Judge was
unnecessary.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Though this expression of our view may not be an error
apparent on the face of the record, in the interest of justice, we
think that this issue though it stands concluded so far as the High
Court is concerned, same should be kept open to be agitated in a
future proceeding after the High Court decides the other issues
involved in the appeal as directed in the above order of ours.
Therefore, we in the process of reviewing the order delete the
observation as to our agreement with the finding of the learned single
Judge on the question of the authority of a single member of the
Company Law Board to decide issues such as one that was involved
in the cases before him, and as held in the original order of ours, the
matter will stand remitted to the High Court for deciding the other
issues except the one already decided by the High Court.
With the above modification, the review petitions stand
allowed.