ARINDAM SINHA, J. - (1.) Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Yashdeep Trexim Pvt. Ltd. submits, he has made his submissions only on the issue regarding whether or not winding up proceeding in respect of the company has been permanently stayed. He has further submissions to make, inter alia, on the issue of who should be in management and control of the company. He refers to order dated 2nd March, 2017 where I had decided on the approach for adjudicating the objection raised by Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the persons in control of the company, regarding locus standi of the applicant in C.A. 905 of 2016 to seek appointment of a person to act as joint special officer in place of the since deceased person who was acting as such. In that order I had said as follows:- "For the purpose of adjudicating the objection raised by Mr. Mitra, learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the company, this Court feels it necessary to decide the issue regarding who is to be in control of the management of the company before deciding on the preliminary objection."
(2.) Mr. S.N.Mitra submits, this order, though interlocutory, stands accepted by the parties. The judgment dated 30th August, 2017 of the Supreme Court on applications in Civil Apeal nos.4298-4299 of 2017 (Baranagar Jute Factory Plc. Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) vs. Baranagar Jute Factory Plc . And others. etc. does not also affect this order. Referring to the said judgment he draws attention to several passages therein including the observation of the said Court that this is a three decades long fight on the management of the company. He relies on paragraph 18 therein to submit, the said Court recorded that the appearing parties submit they would extend full cooperation to the Company Judge to dispose of the applications and the company petition itself without any delay. Hence, he wants to make further submissions, there being no direction by this Court as to why he should not make them at this stage. He submits, Radheshyam Ajitsaria (supra) was pleaded in affidavits filed on behalf of the company in the contempt proceeding, in which the said judgment dated 30th August, 2017 was made. He submits further, submissions made by Mrs. Agarwal appearing on behalf of some of the creditors were confined to the issue of permanent stay simply because creditors are seeking recovery and not participation in the management of the company.
(3.) Submissions made on behalf of the persons in control of the company were recorded, inter alia, in order dated 16th February, 2017. The argument was on a point of law regarding bar of res judicata operating against parties in questioning the correctness of, according to them, the finding of the Supreme Court regarding winding up proceeding of the company having been permanently stayed, upon having heard those parties. Authority for the proposition of law declared by the Supreme Court that even obiter dictum of that Court would be binding on this Court was also cited and recorded. In contempt proceedings, the Supreme Court thereafter came to pass the said judgment dated 30th August, 2017. The first paragraph of the judgment carries the observation:- "One wonders why, despite several directions by this Court, the Company Petition itself has not been disposed of." ;