Balasubramanian, Vice Chairman - (1.) THE petitioner in CP No. 16 of 2000 has filed this application CA No. 93 of 2001 seeking a review of the final order passed by this Bench on 12-1-2001 on the ground that the CLB decision was based on one of the important documents relied on by the respondents which has now been discovered to be a fabricated document. In addition she has also filed 3 other applications supporting the averments in CA No. 93 of 2001.
(2.) According to the applicant, one of the main grievances of the petitioner in the petition was that she did not receive the notice for the Board meeting allegedly held on 10-2-2000 in which various decisions oppressive to the petitioner were taken. In the Board Meeting held pursuant to the directions of this Bench on 3-4-2000, the respondents produced before the petitioner a copy of the receipt for the registered post allegedly sent by the company on 24-1-2000 for the meeting convened on 10-2-2000. In view of this, in para 10 of the order dated 12-1-2001, the Bench had observed that in view of the evidence of posting of the notice for the meeting, the petitioner cannot complain of non-receipt of the notice. Now the petitioner has obtained a certificate from the Mukand Nagar Post Office from which the said registered letter was allegedly sent and receipt obtained stating that the said registered letter No. 3743 dated 24-1-2000 had not been booked in that office and that the date stamp of the receipt was not that of Mukand Nagar Post Office. Therefore, since the respondents had obtained an order on the basis of a forged document, this Bench should review/recall its order dated 12-1-2001. Ms. Madhu Tewatia, advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted as follows : The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of this Bench dated 12-1-2001 in Delhi High Court. After filing of that appeal, the petitioner obtained a certificate dated 23-2-2001 from Mukand Nagar Post Office stating that the registered letter purportedly sent by the respondents enclosing therewith notice for the Board Meeting convened on 10-2-2000 had not been booked in that office. In view of this, the petitioner sought liberty of the High Court to withdraw the appeal and file a review application before this Bench and, accordingly, this application has been filed. Since, all the actions alleged in the petition as oppressive to the petitioner arose out of the decisions taken in the Board Meeting on 10-2-2000 for which the petitioner did not receive the notice, they should be declared to be nulland void and if done so, the final directions given by this Bench in its order dated 12-1-2001 would require modification. Since the Bench had passed the impugned order on the basis of the fabricated document, it has all the powers to review its order as held by the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh AIR 2000 SC 1165 wherein the Supreme Court has observed "No court can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was wangled through fraud or mis-representation of such a dimension as would reflect the very basis of the claim". Accordingly, she prayed for recalling the order dated 12-1-2001 and passing a fresh order taking into consideration that the petitioner did not receive the notice for the meeting held on 10-2-2000.
(3.) SHRI Chandiok, Senior advocate appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted as follows : The application is misconceived and is not maintainable. The Company Law Board has no power to review its own order for want of any statutory conferment of such powers on the Board. This has been recognized by the Board itself in Naresh Trehan v. Hymatic Agro Equipments (P.) Ltd. [1999] 98 Comp. Cas. 7 and Michelle Jawad-Al-Fahoum v. Indo Saudi (Travels) (P.) Ltd. [1998] 93 Comp. Cas. 151. In para 7 of the order dated 12-1-2001, the Bench has recorded that the main complaint of the petitioner was that she was not aware of the identity of the persons to whom the shares were sold and the price at which they were sold. In view of this, the Bench directed convening of a Board meeting of the company to disclose these details to the petitioner. Accordingly, a Board meeting was held on 3-4-2000 in which all the informations sought for by her were furnished. Therefore, now she cannot complain of non-receipt of notice for the meeting held on 10-2-2000 wherein all these decisions were taken. Further, the letter of the Post Office relied on by the petitioner can also not be accepted inasmuch as the Postal Authorities do not keep records of January, 2000 till end March, 2001, Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the petition.;