R.P. Khosla & Anr vs Honble Company Law Board&Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 5308 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

     Review Petition No.527/2013 & CM Nos.14344-46/2013 in
                     +    W.P.(C) 6002/2013

      %                   Reserved on : 21st October, 2013
                         Date of decision : 19th November, 2013
        R.P. KHOSLA & ANR.                ..... Petitioners
                       Through : Mr. Deepak Khosla, Adv.
                                   (petitioner        no.2)  for
                                   petitioners.

                                versus

        HON'BLE COMPANY LAW BOARD&ORS ..Respondents
                     Through : None.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

                                 JUDGMENT

CM Nos.14344-45/2013

Allowed, subject to just exceptions. The applications are disposed of.

CM No.14346/2013 The time for deposit of the deficient Court fees is extended by 15 days.The application is disposed of.

Review Petition No.527/2013

1. On 10th October, 2013, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioners when the case was called out. In the interest of justice, this Court adjourned the case to 20th November, 2013. The order dated 10th October, 2013 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"There is no appearance on behalf of the petitioners. In the interest of justice adverse orders are deferred.

List on 20th November, 2013."

2. The petitioners are seeking review of the order dated 10 th October, 2013 on the ground that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to adjourn the matter on the first call and therefore, the order is nullity in law. The relevant grounds raised by the petitioners in the application are reproduced hereunder:-

"10. This is most respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Court does not have the jurisdiction - the "authority" - the "power" - to adjourn a matter on first call itself.

11. Hence, the order deserves to be reviewed, and recalled, being a "nullity" in law."

3. At the time of hearing, petitioner no.2 submitted that there is a Rule that in the event of non-appearance of the petitioner, the Court cannot adjourn the matter on the first call. However, petitioner no.2 could not show any such Rule but he insisted that his statement may be recorded that there is such a Rule.

4. The following two questions arise for consideration in this matter:

i) Whether there is a Rule that this Court cannot adjourn a matter on the first call?

ii) Whether the order dated 10th October, 2013 is nullity in law?

5. The submission of petitioner no.2 that there is a Rule providing mandatory passover on the first call is incorrect as there is no such Rule. The objection raised by the petitioner is frivolous. The Court has absolute discretion to passover a matter. In matters requiring urgent hearing, the Court may passover the matter more than once whereas in other cases, the Court may not passover even once.

6. The plea of nullity raised by the petitioners is also frivolous, misconceived and irresponsible since petitioner no.2 is not challenging the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this matter. If the Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a matter, the error, if any, in the order would not make it a nullity.

7. The next question which arises for consideration is as to what is the consequence of petitioner no.2 raising frivolous objections. A counsel being an officer of the Court has the duty to place the correct position of law to assist the Court in administration of justice. It is the duty of every counsel to make the correct legal submissions before the Court. Failure of the counsel to check the correct position of law and make frivolous submissions before the Court is a serious matter. It is noted that petitioner no.2 has failed in this duty more than once. The petitioners would challenge every order as nullity. According to the petitioner, the order dated 24th September, 2013 whereby this Court heard the arguments and reserved the order was a nullity and the order dated 10th October, 2013 whereby this Court adjourned the matter and deferred adverse order due to non-appearance of the

petitioners is also a nullity. The petitioners challenged the order dated 24th September, 2013 as a nullity in LPA No.717/2013,which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27th September, 2013. In W.P.(C)No.5889/2013, the petitioner's challenge to the order of Company Law Board as nullity was also rejected by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 1st October, 2013. Petitioner no.2 appears to be unaware of the consequences of mis-stating the law, and therefore this Court would like to grant him one opportunity to correct himself. This Court hopes that petitioner No.2 would not repeat such lapse in future and therefore, action against petitioner No.2 is deferred for the time being.

8. There is no merit or substance in the Review Petition No.521/2013 seeking review of the order dated 30 th September, 2013 and therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed with costs. In a recent order dated 13th August, 2013 passed by this Court in Cont.Cas(C)No.165/2008, this Court has dismissed a frivolous application of the petitioner with cost of Rs.20,000/- with a direction to the Registry not to register/list any application without leave of the Court and until the cost is deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. This Court is of the view that similar direction is warranted in this matter as well. The review petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited by the petitioners with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. The Registry shall not list any case of the petitioners

before this Court without leave of this Court and also until the cost is deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

J.R. MIDHA, J.

NOVEMBER 19, 2013