Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 812 (HP)

Jiwan Mehta v. Emmbros Metals (P) Ltd

2013-09-13

A.M.KHANWILKAR, V.K.SHARMA

body2013
JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. - 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. THIS petition is for review of order, dated 6th January, 2010, passed in Company Appeal No. 4 of 2007. The Court proceeded on the finding that the petitioner did not make a mention about the MOU in the petition filed before the Company Law Board. On the basis of that finding of fact, the matter was examined and the Court upheld the view taken by the Company Law Board in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Sections 397, 398 and 402 of Companies Act. Counsel for the review petitioner has placed reliance on the discussion in paragraph 26 of the decision of the Company Law Board to contend that the finding recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment under review is error apparent on the face of record. 3. WE are not impressed by this argument at all. The finding of fact recorded by the Division Bench is that no disclosure was made by the petitioner about the MOU in the petition filed before the Company Law Board. That finding of fact, in our opinion, is indisputable and, in fact, was the basis of preliminary objection raised by the respondents for dismissal of the petition filed before the Company Law Board. In the circumstances, this grievance of the petitioner does not commend to us. 4. COUNSEL for the review petitioner would then rely upon the decision of the Punjab High Court and that of the Supreme Court, which has overturned the decision of the Company Law Board passed in Company Petition No. 60 of 2004. In paragraph 26 of the judgment of the Company Law ou Board, reference is made to the said decision and justification for dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner. The fact that the said decision has been subsequently overruled after the judgment of this Court, dated 6th January, 2010, will be of no avail. It is well established position that subsequent decision cannot be a ground for review. The petitioner is free to pursue such other remedy, as may be advised. Petition dismissed. 5. IN view of dismissal of the review petition, no order is required on this application. The same is disposed of.