(1.) A. H. O. 13 of 1961 and A. H Os. 2 to 14 of 1962 were allowed on 18-4-63. By a separate order on the very day, all interim orders passed in the case including the one appointing Shri G. C. Das as Court's nominee in the interim Board of directors were vacated with effect from that date. This application has been filed on 19-4-63 on behalf of Mr. S. P. Jain, the petitioner in the Company Act case, asking for three reliefs. Those are to direct the appellants in all the aforesaid A. H. Os. (I) not to permit and effect any transfer of the 39,000 shares dealt with in the judgment, (2) not to alter the constitution of the Board of Directors prior to the judgment dated 18-4-63, and (3) not to issue any further shares. The second prayer was not pressed at the time of hearing.
(2.) THE averment in the petition is to the effect that the petitioner has not been able to procure a certified copy of the judgment, on account of which he has not been able to file an application for leave to Supreme Court, and unless interim orders, as prayed for, are made, he would be prejudicially affected. The application is opposed. We have heard the parties.
(3.) A legal objection has been taken by Mr. Choudhry that the prayers cannot be granted as there is no application for leave to Supreme Court pending before this court. Reliance is placed on a Bench decision of this Court reported in Purna chand v. Chamra Bariha, AIR 1954 Orissa 114. In Ramendra Narayan v. Bibhabari debi, AIR 1942 Cal 488 a Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that even after the dismissal of an appeal the High Court has inherent power under Section 151 to make an interim order, in aid of the order which may eventually be passed by the court dealing with the application for leave to appeal apart from the provisions of order 45, Rule 13 C. P. C. The decision of the Supreme Court reported in Manohar lal v. Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527 gives a wide construction to Section 151 C. P. C. and clearly lays down,