MODILUFT LTD. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 391(6) of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking an order similar to that passed by Madan Lokur, J. of this Court on 31st December 2001. By the said order it was directed as under:

(2.) DR . A.M. Singhvi and thereafter Mr. A.N. Haksar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant have contended the following grounds in support of the protective order sought for the Annual General Meeting summoned for 18th April 2002:

(3.) MR . Rajiv Sawhney, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the non applicant has raised a preliminary plea that an application under Section 391(6) of the Act is not maintainable as the original application under Section 391(1) i.e. CA 797/2000 was filed in the year 2000 and no orders having been passed under Section 391(1) the recourse to Section 391(1) in the year 2002 was without jurisdiction. He submitted that one could not merely file an application under Section 391(1) of the Act and without obtaining any substantive order thereon, use such an application as a springboard for applications under Section 391(6). He placed reliance on a judgment of the learned Single Judge of Bombay High Court in Sakamari Steel & Alloys Ltd. reported as, 1981(51) Comp Cas 266 to contend that the present application was not maintainable. In particular reliance was placed on the following two passages from the above judgment: