Page 1

‘  NON-REPORTABLE’   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 2814-2815 OF 2015 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.33342-43 of  

2014)

BARANAGORE JUTE FACTORY PLC.               …Appellant (s)

                versus

SHREEKISHAN OMPRAKASH  AND ANOTHER                … Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2816 OF 2015 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.24871 of  

2014)

YASHDEEP TREXIM PRIVATE LTD.                …Appellant (s)

                versus

BARANAGORE JUTE FACTORY PLC. (IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS  …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

M.Y. Eqbal, J.:

1

Page 2

Leave granted.

2. These appeals by Special Leave have been filed against  

the impugned order dated 14.8.2014 passed by the Division  

Bench of the Calcutta High Court in ACO No.38 of 2014 and  

APOT No. 230 of 2014 in CP. No.2 of 1987.  By the impugned  

order, the Division Bench affirmed the order dated 20.2.2014  

passed by the Company Judge in T.A. No. 125 of 2012 on an  

application filed by the appellant praying for a direction to  

make over the money deposited with the Registrar, Original  

Side  of  the  Calcutta  High  Court  in  terms  of  earlier  order  

dated 23.2.2011 together with the interest to the appellant.

3. A perusal of the order dated 20th February, 2014 would  

show that there are nine applications including one made by  

a Judges’ Summons taken out by M/s. L.P. Agrawalla & Co.  

praying  for  directions  to  make  over  to  the  applicant  the  

money  lying  deposited  in  terms  of  the  order  dated  23rd  

February,  2011.   The  Company  Judge  noticed  that  the  

2

Page 3

application in which the order dated 23rd February, 2011 was  

passed is still pending and the application to obtain an order  

of refund is seriously under challenge in one of the pending  

nine applications.  The Company Judge, therefore, was of the  

view that the proper course would be to dispose of all the  

applications in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The Division bench while affirming the order passed by  

the Company Judge observed as under:-

“Considering the amount of deposit which the  appellants  want  to  withdraw,  and  the  company’s indebtness to its  various  creditors  and the quantum of its liability,  coupled with  the facts that even the workers have not been  paid their dues, we do not feel it safe to allow a  particular  group  of  shareholders,  who  are  described  as  interloper  by  the  creditors,  to  withdraw  the  money  deposited  with  the  Registrar,  Original  Side  of  this  Court  without  deciding the said issue finally particularly when  we  find  that  the  appellant/applicant  themselves have filed an application being C.A.  No.957 of 2010 praying for permanent stay of  the company petition No.2 of 1987 which is yet  to be decided finally. In the aforesaid context,  we do not find any illegality in the impugned  order  passed  by  the  learned  Company  Court  proposing  to  dispose  of  all  the  pending  applications simultaneously.”

3

Page 4

5. We have heard Mr. Harish N. Salve and Mr. Dushyant  

Dave,  learned senior  counsel  appearing for  the respective  

appellant.  We have also heard Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Mr.  

Ajit Kumar Sinha, Mr. Sanjeev Sen, Mr. Amit Sibal and Mr.  

Huzefa  Ahmadi,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  

respondents/intervenors.

6. It  has been brought to our notice that the impugned  

order  dated  14.8.2014  was  earlier  challenged  in  SLP  (C)  

No.29330  of  2014  (@ SLP  CC  No.16278/2014).   The  said  

Special  Leave  Petition  was  dismissed  as  withdrawn  on  

27.10.2014 by passing the following order.   

“Mr. Ajit  Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel  appearing for the petitioner, seeks permission  to withdraw this petition with a liberty to move  the Company Judge to dispose of the pending  matters  as  expeditiously  as  possible.  Therefore, in view of the fair submission made  by the learned senior counsel, we dismiss this  special  leave  petition  as  withdrawn  with  a  request  to  the  Company  Judge  to  dispose of  the  pending  matters  as  expeditiously  as  possible  preferably  within  a  period  of  three  months from today.”

4

Page 5

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of  

the  opinion  that  the  Company  Judge  before  whom  all  

applications  are  pending  should  dispose  of  the  same  as  

expeditiously as possible within a period of two months from  

today.

8. With  the aforesaid  direction,  appeals  are disposed of  

with no orders as to costs.    All  interlocutory applications  

including impleadment petitions also stand disposed of.

…………………………….J. [ M.Y. Eqbal ]  

…………………………….J [Amitava Roy]

New Delhi March 12, 2015

5