(1.) After the respondent Shri Hardit Singh Giani was appointed as a liquidator of National Planners Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, in voluntary winding up proceedings, the liquidation proceedings came under the supervision of the Court. The Registrar of Companies applied to the District Judge exercising jurisdiction under a notification issued under section 10 of the Companies Act for removal of the liquidator. The District Judge granted the prayer and removed the liquidator. An appeal was filed against the decision of the District Judge under section 483 of the Companies Act to this Court. Hardy, J. (as he then was) by the order under appeal set aside the order of the District Judge and reappointed Shri Giani as the liquidator and also Shri V. S. Joneja, Official liquidator, as the additional liquidator directing both of them to complete the winding up proceedings expeditiously. This appeal under clause 10 of the letters Patent has been filed against the decision of Hardy, J. (as he then was), without a certificate from the learned Judge.
(2.) The appel came up for hearing before a Division Bench consisting of V. S. Deshpande and S. Rangarajan, JJ. A preliminary objection was raised that the letters patent appeal was not maintainable without a certificate from the learned Single Judge. In similar circumstances. Hardy, C. J. and Prakash Narain, J. in Sri Ram and others v. M/s. Bulbhdass and others, ILR (1972) II Delhi 530, had held that an appeal does not lie under clause 10 of the letters Patent without a certificate from the learned Single Judge who decided the appeal under section 483 of the Companies Act against the order of the District Judge exercising jurisdiction under a notification issued under section 10 of the Companies Act.
(3.) The Division Bench was of the view that the decision in Shri Ram v. Bulbhdass needed to be reconsidered and, therefore, referred the question to a Full Bench. That is how the question has come up now before us