- Bench:Grover, A.N.Shah, J.C.Hegde, K.S.
- Appellant: Smt. JatanGolcha
- Respondent: M/S Golcha Properties Ltd.
- Citation: (1970) 3 SCC 573
Issues:
1. Whether the person be served witha notice of the summons under the general rule ofnatural justice and that no order should be made affecting the rights of a party without affording a proper opportunityto it to represent its case.
2. Whether the High court erred in not entertaining the appellant’s appeal.
Facts:
The respondent-company holding leasehold rights in theappellant landwent into liquidation. Acceptingtheofficial liquidator's report the company Judge (RajasthanHighCourt) without hearing anyone or issuing notice to theappellant ordered auction of the lease hold right oftherespondent company. The appellant sent a letter to theOfficial Liquidatorrevoking the licence granted tothecompanyand calling upon him to, deliver possession of theland. The Official Liquidator claimed that the company was entitled to a further period of lease under the agreement. Noticewas issued in respect of the proposed auction sale.The appellant filed an appeal before the HighCourt. TheHigh Court held that since the appellant had not appeared before the company Judge, she was not entitled to maintainthe appeal, and further that the only remedy of the appellant was by way of a suit after obtaining leave oftheCompany Judge unders. 446 of the Indian Companies Act.
Contentions raised by the Appellant:
The appellant contended that the order filed for an appeal was rejected by the High court because she had not appeared before the court.
Judgment:
The court held that summons have to be issued to the petitioner on whose petition the order for winding up was made. It is implicit that if the directions which have to be given by the court would affect any person prejudicially hemust be served with a notice of the summons under the general rule of natural justice and that no order should be made affecting the rights of a party without affording a proper opportunity to it to represent its case. The High Court was thus clearly in error in not entertaining and deciding the appeal preferred by the appellant who was the owner of the land in which lease hold rights said to have been created by her in favour of the Company in liquidation were sought to be sold.
