http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Review Petition (civil)  1083-1084 of 2003

PETITIONER: M/s. J.P. Srivastava & Sons (Rampur) Pvt.Ltd.& Ors.

RESPONDENT: M/s.Gwalior Sugar Company Ltd.& Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/03/2004

BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde & B.P. Singh.

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4579-4580/2003

SANTOSH HEGDE,J.

               While considering the above review petitions in Chambers  and while giving liberty of  oral hearing  to the parties we issued   notice  on  27.8.2003 to the respondents on these review petitions.                 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.  Review petitions  are admitted.                 After hearing the learned counsel we think it  appropriate to  dispose of  these review petitions finally.  The learned counsel for the  petitioners submits while remanding the above  appeals back to the  High Court, we had indicated that we will not be expressing any final  opinion on  any of the issues involved  in the said appeals.  But while  perusing the copy of the judgment parties noticed that in regard to the  question of the authority of a single Member of the Company Law  Board to decide issues such as one that was involved in the case  before the Company Law Board, we had expressed our agreement   with the finding of  the learned  single Judge of the High Court which  according  to the learned counsel was not intended  since we had  decided to remand the matter back to the High Court for consideration  of issues not considered by the High Court in the impugned order.                 The learned senior counsel for the respondents however  contended that this question was argued before this Court and the  finding given by us  on the said question was not unintended but was a  finding given after hearing the parties concerned.  Therefore, there is   no need to review the said order.                 As could be seen from our order under review, the issue that  arose  for consideration  before the High Court was not only the  question of jurisdiction of a single member of the Company Law  Board  to take up the matters sitting singly, but also other issues  involving various other questions.  But the High Court decided only   the question of jurisdiction of  the single Member of the Company  Law Board to entertain a petition without going into the other issues.   Therefore, while requiring the High Court to  give a finding  on all  other issues also which arose before it in the appeal, we think it was  not  correct  on our  part to have expressed our views in regard to the  sole issue decided by the learned single Judge.  While this Court  on   remand  need not go into the  issue already decided by it, namely, the  jurisdiction of the single  member  to entertain a petition, we expect  the  High Court to decide the other issues so that the aggrieved party  could take recourse to such remedy as is available to them   in law.  In  that process, we think the expression of a view by us as to the  correctness of the finding of the learned single Judge was  unnecessary.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

               Though this expression of our view may not be an error   apparent on the  face of  the record, in the interest  of justice, we  think that this issue though it stands concluded so far as  the High  Court is concerned,  same should  be kept open to be agitated in  a  future proceeding after the High Court decides the other issues  involved in the appeal as directed in the above order of ours.                 Therefore, we in the process of reviewing the order delete the  observation as to our agreement with the finding of the learned single   Judge on the question  of the authority of a single member of the  Company Law Board to decide issues such as one that was involved  in the cases before him, and as held  in the original  order  of  ours, the  matter  will  stand  remitted to the High Court for deciding the other  issues except the one already decided by the  High Court.                 With the above modification, the review petitions stand  allowed.