SHAPOORJI DATA PROCESSING LIMITED Vs. AMEER TRADING CORPORATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the threshold it was contended on behalf of the respondent company that petition for review considering Order 47 was not maintainable. In so far as power of review is concerned, it is now a settled proposition of law that the power to review must be conferred for exercising the power of review. The Company Court while exercising jurisdiction under the Companies Act does not cease to be Civil Court. The rules framed under the Companies Act, will be applicable to company proceedings. In the absence of any specific rule, procedure provided under the Code of Civil Procedure would be applicable. In the instant case, Order 47 is power of the Civil Court and in those circumstances, the High Court functioning as a company Court, but none the less a Civil Court has the power of review.

(2.) THE only question which remains to be answered is whether the power of review can be exercised at the instance of the party who was not a party to the proceedings. This is the argument which learned Counsel for the company has raised considering language of Order 47, that the order sought to be reviewed by this Court cannot be reviewed. Order 47, Rule 1 provides that the application for review is maintainable at the instance of any person aggrieved by decree or order from which appeal is allowed but from which no appeal is preferred, or from a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or reference of the Court of Small Causes. In so far as Order 47, Rule 2 is concerned, it is the specific power only of a party to the proceeding. In other words, the legislature has chosen to use two different expressions one in so far as "person aggrieved" in Order 47, Rule 1 and any party under Order 47, Rule 2. The Court therefore, will have to consider the expression under Order 47 of C. P. C. On behalf of the petitioners, their learned Counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (Smt. Jatan Kanwar Golcha v. M/s. Golcha Properties Private Ltd.) A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 374. We are not really concerned with the facts of that case but considering the expression "person aggrieved" under section 96, the Apex Court has observed as under:

(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel, I am of the opinion that expression person aggrieved under Order 47 Rule 1 is wider in amplitude and scope than the expression party under Order 47 Rule 2 which restricts the parties to the lis. This is the view taken by Apex Court in Smt. Jatin Golcha (supra ). It is also the view of the Apex Court in the case of K. Ajit (supra ). In the case of K. Ajit in proceedings arose from an order of Central Administration Tribunal. The issues raised were whether power of review was available to the Tribunal and whether a person not a party to the order could prefer a review. After considering the scope and effect thereto in paragraph 4 of the judgment, the Apex Court finally observed as under: we therefore find that a right of review is available to the aggrieved persons on restricted ground mentioned in Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure if filed within the period of limitation. "