NARENDER NATH NANDA Vs. KIDERSONS INDUSTRIES P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FAO (OS)39/1993 was directed against an order dated 5th February, 1993 passed by a Single Judge of this Court rejecting the objections to the report of m/s V. Shankar Aiyer and Co. Chartered Accountants valuing the shares of respondent No. 1 Company and directing implementation of a certain settlement arrived at between the parties on 9th June, 1998 issued. The said appeal was eventually dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court comprising Mahinder narain and S. K. Mahajan,jj as their lordships then were by an order dated 25th march, 1998. Aggrieved of the order of dismissal the appellants preferred Civil appeal No. 1682/1999 before the Apex Court which was disposed of by an order dated 30th October, 2006 modifying the order passed by the learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench to the following extent:

(2.) MS. Anand points out that a Curative Petition filed against the above directions by the respondents was also dismissed by their lordships of the supreme Court by an order dated 11th March, 2008. The net effect of the above two orders passed by the Apex Court, therefore, is that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge stand affirmed subject only to the modification which their lordships have made in the same in the paras extracted above. What now remains to be done is to give effect to the said directions and modifications, which exercise must and ought to be undertaken by the Court that passed the original order. The direction issued by the Supreme Court remanding the matter back to the High Court for giving effect to the directions referred to above would also necessarily imply that the exercise has to be undertaken before the learned Single Judge.

(3.) MS. Anand learned counsel for the appellants, however, argued that appellants No. 2, 3 and 4 were, during the pendency of the appeal in this Court, dispossessed from a part of the premises that was in their occupation. She further states that certain incidental directions have been issued by this Court during the past year and a half since when the proceedings have remained pending before us. Neither of these two aspects should, in our opinion, make any material difference insofar as the forum that is required to give effect to the directions is concerned. If the appellants have been dispossessed as alleged by them and if they are, in terms of the directions issued by the learned Single judge as modified by the Supreme Court, entitled to be put back in possession, the learned Single Judge would certainly examine and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. So also if any incidental directions have been issued by this Court during the pendency of these proceedings, the benefit of the said orders and directions would be available to the parties even before the learned single Judge. Beyond that, it is neither necessary nor proper for us to say anything at this stage. We, accordingly, direct that these proceedings shall now be listed before the appropriate Single Judge for further proceedings in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court on 29th July, 2008.