CP No. 63 (ND) of 2008. Case: In Re: Agya Boortmalt Ltd. Vs. Company Law Board
| Case Number | CP No. 63 (ND) of 2008 |
| Judges | D.R. Deshmukh, Chairman |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Rules 1, 14 |
| Citation | 2012 (110) CLA 245 |
| Judgement Date | May 30, 2012 |
| Court | Company Law Board |
Order:
D.R. Deshmukh, Chairman, (New Delhi Bench)
1. Arguments concluded. The only question that requires consideration by me in this order is whether Company Petition No. 63(ND)/2008 has been filed by the authorised representative of the petitioners.
2. In CP No. 63(ND)/2008 Boortmalt N V is the petitioner No. 1 and Boortmalt India (P.) Ltd. is the petitioner No. 2. The petition is signed by Col. Suraj K Ahuja. With the petition Col. Suraj K Ahuja had sworn two affidavits, one on behalf of the petitioner No. 1, and the other on behalf of the petitioner No. 2 stating that he is their authorised representative and competent to file the company petition. Earlier in the cause title it was stated that P-1 had authorised Col. Suraj K Ahuja by a power of attorney dated 23th September, 2008. As regards P-2 it was stated that Co. Suraj K Ahuja was authorised by a Board resolution dated 23rd September, 2008.
3. The petitioners had, with their rejoinder filed two documents, one a certified copy of the extract from the minutes of the meeting of the Board of directors of P-1 dated 23rd September, 2008 authorising Col. Suraj K Ahuja to file the CP against the respondents, and the other a certified copy of the extracts from the minutes of the meeting of the Board of directors of P-2 dated 23rd September, 2008 also authorising Col. Suraj K Ahuja to file the CP against the respondents.
4. On 17th May, 2012, additional affidavit dated 10th May, 2012 of Col. Ahuja was filed stating that he was authorised through a Board resolution dated 23rd September, 2008 of P-1 as well as P-2 and there was an inadvertent error in the cause title stating that he was authorised by a power of attorney dated 23th September, 2008 by P-1.
5. Under section 10E(4D) of the Companies Act, 1996 ('the Act'), every Bench of the Company Law Board ('CLB') shall be deemed to be a civil court and every proceeding before the Bench shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding. Under sub-section (4C) of section 10E every Bench of the CLB shall have powers which are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('Code') while trying a suit in respect of matters enumerated thereunder.
6. In Sangramsinh P Gaekwad v. Shantidevi P Gaekwad [2005] 64 CLA 364 (SC)/ AIR 2005 SC 809; Ramesh B Desai v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta [2006] 73 CLA 357 (SC)/ AIR 2006 SC 3672; Jhalani Tools (India) Ltd. v. Morgan Ventures Ltd. a decision of the High Court of Delhi reported and Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v...
To continue reading
Request your trial