BRIJ MOHAN GROVER Vs. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter is moved for speaking to the minutes of my judgment and order dated December 22, 2006 and January 15, 2007, (Brij Mohan Grover v. Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay [2007] 139 Comp Cas 682 (Bom)) by the advocate for BLR Knits (Pvt.) Ltd.

(2.) HEARD all advocates present. Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the secured creditor have raised an objection to the grant of corrections as sought for. My attention is drawn to Rule 138 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. It is contended that, under the said rule, the minutes of any order signed by the judge is required to be kept in the Board Department for inspection of the parties for a period of three days from the date of the issue of the minutes. Any party desiring to inspect the minutes shall be entitled to do so on making an oral application to the person in charge of the Board Department and any party who disputes the correctness of the minutes as recorded or objects to the minutes on any other ground may, within four days after the expiry of the period of inspection, apply to the Prothonotary and Senior Master to place the matter before the judge for speaking to the minutes. In my view, apart from the fact that this rule falls in the chapter dealing with chamber judge's orders, the same would apply only where correction in the minutes of the order are sought. In the present case, what is sought are some corrections in the body of the judgment and order. Apart from this, this being a procedural rule, it cannot come in the way of making necessary corrections. It was also sought to be contended by both counsel that a praecipe for speaking to the minutes cannot be filed by BLR Knits (Pvt.) Ltd. It has been pointed out by the advocate for the BLR Knits (Pvt.) Ltd. that they are the sponsor as contemplated by the scheme submitted by the 'sabha'. By the judgment and order, they are required to deposit huge amounts and are to run the textile unit contemplated by the sanctioned scheme. That they have deposited over 15.5 crores in this court. In my view, it is therefore, rightly contended that they have locus to move this praecipe.

(3.) THE workers union 'sabha', which appears in pursuance of notice, supports the application. Counsel appearing for other workers union 'mahasangh' states that they are not opposing any correction which would not extend the time frame during which the workers can expect to receive payments.