Sukhdev Singh and ors. Vs. Ambala Bus Syndicate P. Ltd.

Sukhdev Singh and ors. vs Ambala Bus Syndicate P. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Jun 02, 1989

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/620531

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/620531
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Judge: G.R. Majithia, J.
Decided On: Jun 02, 1989
Case Number: Company Application No. 87 of 1989 in Company Petition No. 100 of 1988
Subject: Company

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority imitation Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly con...

Key legal issue: Company
Acts & sections: Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 397 and 398

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sukhdev Singh and ors.

Advocate Baldev Kapoor, Adv.

Respondent

Ambala Bus Syndicate P. Ltd.

Advocate J.S. Narang, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 397 and 398
Reported In: [1989]66CompCas531(P& H)

Excerpt

- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. if a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period of..........that four new buses will be added on june 3, 1989 and three more buses will be added by june 15, 1989. the addition of new buses indicates that a good deal of progress has been made by the purchasers after they have purchased the shareholdings of the company. the fact that they have discharged the tax liabilities to the extent of 19 lakhs indicate their bona fides. it has further been brought to my notice that a penalty of about rs. 840 lakhs was imposed by the transport authorities for delay in the payment of token tax. that order has been challenged in a writ petition in this court and the recovery of the penalty amount has been stayed. the buses which remained idle in the police lines for more than four years cannot be in good condition. it will be in the interest of the company, if these buses are allowed to be sold. in order to safeguard the interest of the company, of the shareholders and of the purchasers, the following directions are given :(i) the buses will be sold by private negotiations in the presence of the local commissioner appointed by this court. the local commissioner will ensure that the sale price received from the prospective purchasers is deposited in a scheduled bank . (ii) the clients of mr. baldev kapoor will intimate to the clients of mr. narang by registered acknowledgment due letter the offer received by them. in case those shareholders offer to purchase the buses at prices higher than the prices for which mr. kapoor's clients are intending to sell the buses, the buses will be sold to those shareholders. (iii) the confirmation of the sale will be made by this court and till such time, no valid title be passed to the transferee. 3. accordingly, shri b.k. gupta, advocate, chandigarh, is appointed as local commissioner. he is present in court and is directed to see that the abovesaid orders are strictly complied with by the parties. his fees are is fixed at rs. 5,000.4. this application stands disposed of accordingly.

Full Judgment

G.R. Majithia, J.

1. Company Petition No. 100 of 1988 has been filed under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act by one set of shareholders. Along with that petition, Company Application No. 196 of 1988 was filed for restraining the respondents from transferring the assets of the company. That company application came up for motion hearing on November 26, 1988, and the following order was passed by M.M. Punchhi J.

' Notice for December 3, 1988.

Assets of the company be not transferred till further orders.'

2. Company Application No. 87 of 1989 has been moved for vacation of order dated November 26, 1988. It is stated in the application that the company was in arrears of Government taxes and it could not pay even token tax arrears. Buses of the company were attached for recovery 'of Government dues. The applicant purchased the shareholding of the minority shareholders and revived the business of the company by making a huge investment. They discharged all the tax liabilities of the company and got 16 buses released. The buses attached by the Government remained parked in the police lines for more than four years and were not motorable. These were made motorable on making considerable investment. The applicant further states that after they had purchased the shareholding, the company purchased about 26 buses and that at present a fleet of 52 buses is operating. Mr. Baldev Kapoor, on getting instructions from his client, present in court today, states that four new buses will be added on June 3, 1989 and three more buses will be added by June 15, 1989. The addition of new buses indicates that a good deal of progress has been made by the purchasers after they have purchased the shareholdings of the company. The fact that they have discharged the tax liabilities to the extent of 19 lakhs indicate their bona fides. It has further been brought to my notice that a penalty of about Rs. 840 lakhs was imposed by the transport authorities for delay in the payment of token tax. That order has been challenged in a writ petition in this court and the recovery of the penalty amount has been stayed. The buses which remained idle in the police lines for more than four years cannot be in good condition. It will be in the interest of the company, if these buses are allowed to be sold. In order to safeguard the interest of the company, of the shareholders and of the purchasers, the following directions are given :

(i) The buses will be sold by private negotiations in the presence of the Local Commissioner appointed by this court. The Local Commissioner will ensure that the sale price received from the prospective purchasers is deposited in a scheduled bank .

(ii) the clients of Mr. Baldev Kapoor will intimate to the clients of Mr. Narang by registered acknowledgment due letter the offer received by them. In case those shareholders offer to purchase the buses at prices higher than the prices for which Mr. Kapoor's clients are intending to sell the buses, the buses will be sold to those shareholders.

(iii) the confirmation of the sale will be made by this court and till such time, no valid title be passed to the transferee.

3. Accordingly, Shri B.K. Gupta, Advocate, Chandigarh, is appointed as Local Commissioner. He is present in court and is directed to see that the abovesaid orders are strictly complied with by the parties. His fees are is fixed at Rs. 5,000.

4. This application stands disposed of accordingly.

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 1989 Same Parties Sukhdev Singh and ors. vs Ambala Bus Syndicate P. Ltd. Same Subject Company Same Judge G.R. Majithia, J. Acts & Sections Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 397 and 398

Company