Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Agarwal vs Liquidation Claims Committee on 29 August, 2023
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta, Donadi Ramesh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:173754-DB
Court No. - 21
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 469 of 2023
Appellant :- Rajesh Agarwal
Respondent :- Liquidation Claims Committee
Counsel for Appellant :- Tarun Agrawal
Counsel for Respondent :- Shubham Agrawal
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 19.5.2023, by which a learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal against the order dated 23.5.2018, passed by the Liquidation Claims Committee, through the Official Liquidator. Thereby, the claim of the appellant against the company - Seema Ice and Cold Storage in liquidation was rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Official Liquidator raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the instant appeal. He submits that since the impugned order was passed by learned Single Judge in exercise of appellate power under Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, therefore, the instant appeal is barred by Section 100-A CPC, read with Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules. He further submits that the said issue is no more res integra, having been decided against the appellant by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 18.12.2019, in Special Appeal No. 1748 of 2009 (U.P. Cement Vetanbhogi Sahkari Rin Samiti Ltd. vs. Official Liquidator and Another).
3. In the said judgment, the order of Learned Single Judge passed in exercise of appellate power under Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, was under consideration. The Division Bench placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kamal Kumar Dutta and Another vs. Ruby General Hospital Limited and Others, 2006 (7) SCC 613, in holding that neither letter patents appeal, nor appeal under Section 483 of the Companies, would be maintainable against orders passed by learned Single Judge in exercise of appellate power under Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The relevant conclusions are as follows: -
"In the present case, the order impugned was passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Appeal/Objection 85/2007. An application for correction was moved in the order which has also been rejected. The learned Single Judge decided the appeal/objection against the report of the Official Liquidator exercising power under Rule 164 of the Company Rules.
Rule 164 of the Company Rules is quoted below:
"164. Appeal by creditor.-If a creditor is dissatisfied with the decision of the Liquidator in respect of his proof, the creditor may, not later than 21 days from the date of service of the notice upon him of the decision of he Liquidator, appeal to the Court against the decision. The appeal shall be made by a Judge's summons, supported by an affidavit which shall set out the grounds of such appeal, and notice of the appeal shall be given to the Liquidator. On such appeal, the Court shall have all the powers of an appellate Court under the Code."
The application moved for correction in the order passed in the appellate exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge clearly bars further appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, as well as Letters Patent as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kamal Kumar Dutta (supra)."
4. Sri Tarun Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant, is not in a position to dispute that the impugned order also arises out of an order passed by learned Single Judge in exercise of appellate power under Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.
5. The judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in U.P. Cement (supra) is binding on us.
6. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
(Donadi Ramesh, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
Order Date :- 29.8.2023
Jaideep/-
