ORAL ORDER
(HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.J THAKER)
1. Though, the Review application is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned Counsels for the parties, same is taken-up for final hearing and disposal, today.
2. This review application is preferred by the applicant-Respondent No. 1 in O.J Appeal No. 9 of 2014 with a prayer to recall/modify the oral judgment dated 17.04.2014, as prayed for in Para-3 of this application.
3. Heard. Mr. Soparkar, learned Sr. Advocate with Mr. Majmudar, learned Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Soparkar raised three fold contentions in this Review application, i.e (1) the judgment of the Apex Court in “SHRADHHA AROMATICS PVT. LTD. v. O.L OF GLOBAL ARYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED”, 2011 (6) SCALE 330, is not binding and he can contend before the learned Company Judge that it is not applicable to his case; (2) he had given no consent for filing an application before the learned Company Judge and that (3) the consent given by him was only qua disposal of the appeal and maintaining of status quo. According to us, the submissions made by Mr. Soparkar are merit-less, as the order dated 17.04.2014 does not call for review, but, only a minor modification and clarification. However, only with a view to see that no confusion arises before the learned Single Judge, as apprehended by the applicant, who was Respondent No. 1 in the appeal, we propose to delete the word ‘Consensus’, which appears in the second line of Para-6, though, in our opinion it was the finality of the order which was being passed and there was consensus as far as disposing of the appeal is concerned, we clarify that there is no consensus as to the filing of an application or the maintainability, thereof. So far as the word ‘Consensus’, which appears in Para-7 of the judgment dated 17.04.2014 is concerned, same relates to disposing of the appeal only and it does not relate to observations made in Para-6 of the said order. However, there was consent that the status quo would be maintained by the parties, as stated in Paragraph-6(1) of the order dated 17.04.2014
4. So far as other prayers for review are concerned, the present applicant is aptly protected by the observations made by us in Paras-4 to 6 of the judgment dated 17.04.2014 and we are in agreement with the submissions made by Mr. Soparkar that some modification in the aforesaid order, as far as deletion of the word ‘Consensus’ in Para-6 of the judgment dated 17.04.2014 is concerned, same is necessary.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Trivedi, learned Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Vishen, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1, herein, raised a contention that the Review is not maintainable. Mr. Trivedi states that an application has already been filed in compliance of the order dated 17.04.2014 before the learned Company Judge.
6. As regards other objections raised by the applicant with regard to Para-6 of the judgment dated 17.04.2014 is concerned, same are devoid of merits, because we have stated as under in Para-6;
““6. We are proposing to dispose of this appeal on the following consensus that:
1) The appellant before us will move before the learned Company Judge within a period of one week with an appropriate application showing his desire to apply afresh for the bid, as according to Mr. Trivedi, the order dated 17.12.2013 is not finalised and it still requires confirmation of the learned Single Judge. Be that as it may. If the application is not made within one week, the benefit of this order will not enure for the benefit of present appellant. The parties are directed to maintain status-quo till the appellant files an application before the learned Single Judge and the learned Company Judge shall decide the question of interim relief on merits.
2) The appellant shall handover the Demand Draft of Rs. 160 crores to Mr. R.C Mishra, Deputy Official Liquidator, who is present in the Court, today itself. The Deputy Official Liquidator has accepted it and shall pass the receipt of the same to the present appellant. The Official Liquidator shall see that the amount is kept in Fixed Deposit at least for one month so that there is no loss of interest.
3) It goes without saying that we have not entered into the merits of the matter and the deposit of Rs. 160 crores with Official Liquidator is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and we have adopted this only because of the view expressed by the Apex Court in the case of Shradhha Aromatics Private Limited (supra).
4) It goes without saying that once the application is made, it will be open for the learned Single Judge to decide the same on merits. The status-quo thereafter will be subject to the order which may be passed by the learned Single Judge after hearing the parties.
5) The order dated 31.3.2014 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 53 of 2014 by the learned Company Judge is interfered with to the above extent only.”
7. In view of the above discussion, the modification application stands partly ALLOWED with the modification that the word ‘CONSENSUS’ stands DELETED from second line of PARA-6 of the judgment dated 17.04.2013, whereas, the other submissions being devoid of merit, they are REJECTED.
8. It goes without saying that the learned Single Judge shall decide the main matter on merits and while doing so he shall consider the decision in the case of “SHRADHHA AROMATICS PVT. LTD.” (Supra) and other decisions as well.
9. The order with regard to status quo, which is clarified by us today, does not need, any further delving in the matter, as we have requested the learned Single Judge to decide the main matter on merits, as observed by us in the judgment dated 17.04.2014 No other points were urged/raised by the applicant before us, except, the three points, as stated above. This application stands DISPOSED OF, accordingly. No order as to costs.