State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. M/s Pancham Singh & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4568 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18844 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18844 of 1999)
Petitioner: State of Bihar & Ors.
Respondent: M/s Pancham Singh & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4568 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18844 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18844 of 1999)
Judges: S.B. MAJMUDAR & S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 16, 2000
Head Note:
CIVIL LAW
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Section 115 and Order 22, Rules 3, 4 – Order of High Court – No interference called for – However, orders modified to the extent that substitution application allowed, satisfying the takeover of company.
(Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant-State & Others as well as learned Counsel for respondent no. 1, who is the only contesting party finally in this appeal with their consent.
3. In our view, the order passed by the High Court in the civil revision application calls for no interference save and except inserting a modification as under :
“Substitution of M/s Vijeta Construction Ltd. in place of M/s Pancham Singh, shall be subject to the trial court making an enquiry into the matter. If respondent no. 1 satisfies by adducing documents including the document of taking over of the firm, M/s Pancham Singh under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, that respondent no. 1 – firm, had been taken over by M/s Vijeta Construction Ltd., the latter shall be substituted in place of the original revision petitioner namely M/s Pancham Singh on such terms including the payment of costs as the learned trial court may think fit and thereafter, the trial court may proceed further in accordance with law for disposal of the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.”
4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant-State & Others as well as learned Counsel for respondent no. 1, who is the only contesting party finally in this appeal with their consent.
3. In our view, the order passed by the High Court in the civil revision application calls for no interference save and except inserting a modification as under :
“Substitution of M/s Vijeta Construction Ltd. in place of M/s Pancham Singh, shall be subject to the trial court making an enquiry into the matter. If respondent no. 1 satisfies by adducing documents including the document of taking over of the firm, M/s Pancham Singh under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, that respondent no. 1 – firm, had been taken over by M/s Vijeta Construction Ltd., the latter shall be substituted in place of the original revision petitioner namely M/s Pancham Singh on such terms including the payment of costs as the learned trial court may think fit and thereafter, the trial court may proceed further in accordance with law for disposal of the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.”
4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
