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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1661 of 2008

PETITIONER: Vijay Kumar Karwa

RESPONDENT: Official Liquidator, Rohtas Inds. Ltd

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/02/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & C.K. THAKKER & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1661 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.10587 of 2007)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted.

2.      Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a  Division Bench of the Patna High Court summarily dismissing  the Company Appeal No.4 of 2006 filed by the appellant under  Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short ’the Act’).     

3.      Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:  

       Company case no.3 of 1984 was filed before the Patna  High Court in respect of Rohtas Industries Ltd. (hereinafter  referred to as the ’company’) which purportedly had become  sick.  It is the case of the appellant that though efforts were  made to revive, it could not materialized. Eventually the High  Court started the process of disposal of the assets of the  company. Appellant claiming to be representative of Bangar  Group of Industries, Calcutta, filed an application in the said  case.  After giving particulars of the group which had annual  turnover of about Rs.5,000 crores, it was mentioned in the  application that the appellant was interested in the revival of  the company.  It was also mentioned that the appellant had so  decided because of the change of political conditions of the  State and there was scope for industrial growth.  The  appellant offered to pay Rs.65.51 crores as consideration  money for purchase of assets of the company in liquidation  and proposed to invest Rs.650 crores for revival of the  industry. Steps were taken at various stages by the  Government and the functionaries of the government on the  application of appellant. Official Liquidator was asked to file  reply to the prayers made in the application by the appellant.   Official Liquidator filed his response on 19.6.2006.  On  25.8.2006 the matter was heard by the High Court which  directed for issuance of sale notice for assets of the company.   IA filed by the appellant was disposed of.  

The appellant’s grievance is that the same was disposed

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

of without giving any reason or even without considering the  desirability of the revival.  Reference was made to the response  of the Official Liquidator who had stated further information  may be called for from the appellant.  Aggrieved by the said  order, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 483 of the  Act before the Division Bench on 11.1.2007.  The Company  Judge proceeded with the matter and directed sale of the  assets of the company in favour of the Indian Railways who  had made offer of Rs.140 crores.  On 12.3.2007, IA was filed  by the appellant giving details of his proposal.  By the  impugned order the Division Bench dismissed the appeal.   Though various grounds have been urged in support of the  appeal, the primary ground of challenge is that such summary  disposal is indefensible particularly when the appeal is a  statutory appeal.                  

4.      Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted  that there was no merit in the appeal as the learned Company  Judge had discussed with the matter in great detail.  It was  also submitted that the Indian Railways have already invested  huge amounts of money.     

5.      Section 483 of the Act reads as follows:

 "483. Appeals from orders.\027Appeals from any  order made, or decision given before the  commencement of the Companies (Second  Amendment) Act, 2002, in the matter of the  winding up of a company by the Court shall  lie to the same Court to which, in the same  manner in which, and subject to the same  conditions under which, appeals lie from any  order or decision of the Court in cases within  its ordinary jurisdiction."  

6.      In Shanta Genevienve Pommerat and another v.  Sakal  Papers Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. (AIR 1983 SC 269) it was observed  by this Court that the High Court is bound to entertain the  appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge who  disposed of it on merit and not summarily or in limine.  The  position was reiterated in Smt. Arati Dutta v. M/s. Eastern  Tea Estates (P) Ltd. (AIR 1988 SC 325).   

7.      It may be noted that every order which may reasonably  be considered to be a judicial order as distinct from merely  administrative order is appealable in terms of Section 483 of  the Act.   

8.      Above being the position, we set aside the impugned  order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh  disposal in accordance with law.  Considering the factual  scenario as highlighted by the parties, we request the High  Court to dispose of the appeal by the end of August, 2008.   The order of status quo dated 31.8.2007 passed by this Court  shall be operative till the disposal of the appeal. It is made  clear that by giving interim protection, we have not expressed  any opinion on the merits of the case.