SATISH CHAND SANWALKA Vs. TINPLATE DEALERS ASSOCIATION PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Sections 397/398 and 111(4) of the Companies Act, 1956 ("the Act"), in the matter of Tinplate Dealers Association Private Limited, we passed an order on October 30, 1996, incorporating therein the terms of settlement between the parties and disposed of the petition as withdrawn. However, later, respondent No. 9 sought for recalling the order on the ground that even though she was a party to the proceedings, her consent was not obtained and incorporated in the consent terms in our order and that the terms of consent, if implemented, would prejudicially affect her. Having found that the terms of compromise did affect her rights and that she was not a party to the consent terms, we recalled that order and reopened the petition for hearing on the merits.

(2.) When the petition was taken up for hearing, counsel appearing for the respondents raised certain preliminary issues relating to the maintainability of the petition and counsel for the petitioners also argued as to how the petition was maintainable and according to him even the question about the maintainability cannot be decided without going through the petition.

(3.) THIS order was recorded in the presence of counsel and some of the counsel also noted the order by signing the order sheet. At that time, none of the counsel made any prayer that we should issue an order on the maintainability before proceeding with the main petition. Later, it transpired that respondent No. 9 had taken this order on appeal to the Calcutta High Court which has passed an order that we should issue an order on the maintainability before proceeding with the matter. Accordingly, this order is being issued.