MAHABIR PRASAD JALAN Vs. BAJRANG PRASAD JALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals were initially directed against an interim order dated February 6, 1997, passed by a learned single judge of this court in Bajrang Prasad Jalan v. Akshay Nidhi Ltd. (Company Petition No. 447 of 1990). The applicants respondents herein filed an application on February 12, 1990, under Section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956, for certain reliefs against the appellants and other respondents. Upon completion of exchange of affidavits the parties addressed the learned trial judge on the merits of the said application. While the arguments were almost complete learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants respondents offered that the proceedings be held on trial to which exception was taken by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants on the ground that the said respondent had all along been present during the hearing of the proceeding in court and, thus, was aware of the rival contentions of the parties. At that juncture a question arose as to whether the court had the jurisdiction to try the appellants herein or some of them for alleged offences committed by them under the Eleventh Schedule to the Companies Act read with Section 406 thereof. Learned counsel started their submissions on the question as to whether the company court had the jurisdiction to try the criminal offences itself or at all. By reason of the said judgment the learned judge while holding that he had such jurisdiction also appointed Mr. Dipak Kumar Deb as special officer in regard to five companies, viz., Akshay Nidhi Ltd., Ultra Holding Pvt. Ltd., Sree Credit Company Pvt. Ltd., Bhanu Traders Pvt. Ltd. and Free India Dry Accumulators Ltd. superseding the boards of directors of the said companies. Sri Deb was to function as sole person in charge. Certain other directions were also issued as against the appellants.

(2.) In the appeals filed by the appellants against the said order dated February 6, 1997, a Division Bench by a judgment and order dated June 19, 1997, sought to dispose of the entire appeal holding :

(3.) After the aforementioned judgment was pronounced, an objection was taken by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that arguments had been advanced only on the stay application. In that situation, the Division Bench comprising S.K. Mookherjee, the then Acting Chief Justice and N. K. Batabyal, J. by an order dated June 19, 1997, noted :