Malhotra Steel Syndicate Vs. Punjab Chemi-plants Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- section 11: [s.b. sinha & dr. mukundakam sharma,jj] res judicata - revised pay scale - independent claim made by respondents denied by tribunal on ground of delay and laches on their part - subsequently authorities issued orders on basis of decision of supreme court relating to similarly situated persons and granted revised pay scale to respondents - however, said benefit granted to them was withdrawn on ground that office order had been issued without any jurisdiction - petition against held, principles of res judicata would not be attracted in view of arising of fresh cause of action. revised pay scale:[s.b.sinha & dr.mukundakam sharma,jj] claim by respondents who are four in number - two of them already retired -their claim was found to be justified even by the director of institute - they had been granted benefit of said scale for period of more than two years - withholding of such benefit only on technical plea that requisite approval therefore had not been taken from competent authority held, it is harsh to upheld. more so, when principles of natural justice is not complied with in issuing office order. - 3. we are satisfied that the verification, on a proper and liberal construction, does contain an averment to the effect that the statements made in the affidavit are true and correct to the knowledge of the appellant.orders. ranganathan, v. ramaswami and r.m. sahai, jj.1. leave granted. 2. we have heard both counsel. we have looked at the form and verification of the affidavit filed before the high court in support of the application for winding-up.3. we are satisfied that the verification, on a proper and liberal construction, does contain an averment to the effect that the statements made in the affidavit are true and correct to the knowledge of the appellant. we do not think that the affidavit can be described as defective in any respect. but that apart we are of the opinion that even if there some slight defect or irregularity in the filing of the affidavit, the appellant should have been given an opportunity to rectify the same.4. we are, therefore, of the opinion that the division bench was in error in dismissing the appeal on the short ground that the affidavit filed in support of the petition was rot in proper form and that the petition could not be entertained. we, therefore, set aside the order of the division bench dated 21 -8-1991.in the result, the company appeal will stated revived before the division bench for disposed on merits.5. the appeal is allowed accordingly. there will be no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

S. Ranganathan, v. Ramaswami and R.M. Sahai, JJ.

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard both Counsel. We have looked at the form and verification of the affidavit filed before the High Court in support of the application for winding-up.

3. We are satisfied that the verification, on a proper and liberal construction, does contain an averment to the effect that the statements made in the affidavit are true and correct to the knowledge of the appellant. We do not think that the affidavit can be described as defective in any respect. But that apart we are of the opinion that even if there some slight defect or irregularity in the filing of the affidavit, the appellant should have been given an opportunity to rectify the same.

4. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Division Bench was in error in dismissing the appeal on the short ground that the affidavit filed in support of the petition was rot in proper form and that the petition could not be entertained. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Division Bench dated 21 -8-1991.

In the result, the Company Appeal will stated revived before the Division Bench for disposed on merits.

5. The appeal is allowed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.