BARANAGORE JUTE FACTORY PLC. Vs. SHREEKISHAN OMPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arose out of an order passed by the Company Court on 20th February, 2014 on an application taken out by the appellant/petitioner praying for direction to make over the money deposited with the Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Calcutta in terms of the order passed on 23rd February, 2011 together with interest to the appellant/petitioner. The relief which was claimed by the appellant/petitioner was not granted by the Company Court instantly as the Company Court was informed that the competence of the appellant/petitioner to obtain an order for refund, is seriously under challenge in one of the 9 applications pending for consideration before the Company Court. Accordingly, the appellant/petitioner was directed to serve copy of the said application upon such of the parties as may desire to have a copy thereof so that affidavits-in-opposition may be filed by those parties who intend to file such affidavit-in-opposition in the said proceeding and all the pending applications can be disposed of after exchange of affidavits between the parties.

(2.) The legality and/or propriety of the said order is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the appellant who sought permission to withdraw the money deposited with the Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Calcutta in terms of the order passed on 23rd February 2011. In connection with this appeal, several applications were taken out by several applicants praying for their addition as parties to this appeal. One of such applications for addition of party was filed by the Workers Union, affiliated to INTTUC. The said application was registered as A.C.O No.58 of 2014. The Workers Union has also taken out another application being A.C.O No.133 of 2014 praying for leave to intervene in the present appeal. Prayers in both the applications are almost identical. Identical prayer for addition was made by some of the shareholders of the said company in their application which was registered as A.C.O No.64 of 2014. Another application for addition of party was filed by some unsecured creditors which was registered as A.C.O No.134 of 2014. Besides a regular appeal being A.P.O.T No.230 of 2014 was filed independently by a shareholder who also filed an application for addition as party in this appeal giving rise to A.C.O No.64 of 2014. The said appeal was filed by the said shareholder as its prayer for appointment of Administrator for managing the affairs of the said company which it claimed in its application being C.A No.26 of 2014 was not virtually allowed by the

(3.) Learned Company Court while passing the impugned order on 20th February, 2014. Marathon argument was advanced by Learned Counsels in support of the applications filed by their respective clients. Though no formal order was passed for impleading those applicants as parties to the appeal but all the applicants were heard by this Court on the merit of this appeal as in course of hearing of this appeal, we considered it fit to hear all such applicants as we found that they were vitally interested in the ultimate fate of the appeal. Thus we allowed them to intervene as pro interse suo intervener. In fact the competence of the appellant to obtain an order for refund is seriously under challenge in one of the applications filed by one of such interveners, which is pending before the Learned Company Court.