Shakti Trading Co. P. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Another - Court Judgment
|Court||Delhi High Court|
|Case Number||Civil Writ Petition No. 458 of 1982|
|Judge|| B.N. Kirpal and Prakash Narain, JJ.|
|Reported in||57CompCas789(Delhi); 1983(5)DRJ356; ILR1984Delhi339|
|Acts||Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 77, 82, 88, 247, 250, 265, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 407(1), 408, 408(1), 408(6) and 409|
|Appellant||Shakti Trading Co. P. Ltd. and Another|
|Respondent||Union of India and Another|
|Advocates:|| H.N. Salve,; S.K. Khurana and; Rainu Walia, Advs|
.....to appoint their own directors on the company is obviously adversely affected. at both times, thereforee, the government has to comply with the principles of natural justice before it can pass a valid order section 408(1) of the act. the facts which existed at the time when the original order was passed may not be there at the time when the director are sought to be continued by the passing of a fresh order. each time when an order is passed, the government will have to give an adequate opportunity to the affected parties to show cause as to why government directors should be appointed or re-appointed.; 5. there is no requirement of law that in the show cause notice itself the grounds on which the action is proposed to be taken must be stated. even after the issuance of the.....order on oral appln. for certificate to appeal to the supreme court 56. after we pronounced the judgment, mr. salve makes a prayer for grant of a certificate to appeal to the supreme court under art. 134a of the constitution. he contends that the provisions have been construed for the first time. we do not think the contention is correct. in any case, we feel it is not a case which needs to be decided by the supreme court. we, thereforee, decline the certificate.
ON ORAL APPLN. FOR CERTIFICATE TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT
56. After we pronounced the judgment, Mr. Salve makes a prayer for grant of a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court under art. 134A of the Constitution. He contends that the provisions have been construed for the first time. We do not think the contention is correct. In any case, we feel it is not a case which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. We, thereforee, decline the certificate.