Jute Investment Company Limited v. Idbi Capital Market Services Limited & Ors

G.S.SISTANI, J I, I SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 SU SANGIMDHIMGRA SEHGAL, J (f/) hfo (jx-l FAO (OS) (Comm) 212/2018 & 213/2018 Page Oof 6 3r $--SB-13 & * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS)

(COMM) 212/2018 M/S THE RAMESHWARA JUTE MILLS LIMITED Appellant Through Mr. Neeraj Chaudhri and Ms.Saakshi Agarwal, Advocate versus M/S UNIVERSAL CABLES LIMITED & ORS Respondents Through Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr.Adv. with Ms. Kanika Singh and Mr. Sangram Singh, Advocates for respondent no. 1/applicant + FAO(OS)

(COMM) 213/2018 JUTE INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED Appellant Through Ms. Niyati Kohli, Advocate versus IDBI CAPITAL MARKET SERVICES LIMITED & ORS... Respondents Through Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr.Adv. with Ms. Kanika Singh and Mr. Sangram Singh, Advocates for respondent no.4/applicant CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL ORDER %

16.11.2018 C.M.44688/2016 in FAOIOSl (COMMl 212/2018 C.M.44687/2016 in FAO(OS)

(COMM) 213/2018 (for modification^ By the present applications, the applicant seeks modification in paragraph 9 of the order dated 27.09.2018, which reads as under: "It is agreed that the an-angement arrived at in court today and the order so passed will be circulated amongst all the share holders." Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the necessity of filing this application has arisen because there are 13050 shareholders and sending communication to them would incur huge expenditure. He submits that respondent would communicate this order by e-mail to those shareholders whose e-mail addresses are available and additionally, the order will be uploaded on the website in the investor section. The prayer so made in the application is not opposed. Accordingly, paragraph 9 of the order dated 27.09.2018 is modified and the same shall now be read as under: "It is agreed that the arrangement arrived at in Court today and the order so passed shall be circulated amongst all the shareholders through e-mail, whose e-mail addresses are available. Additionally, the order will be uploaded on the website of the company in the investor section." With the above modification, the applications are disposed of. -r. G.S.SISTANI, J NOVEMBER 16, 2018 rb FAO(OS) (COMM) Nos.212-213/2018 sangerA'^dhingra-sehgal, j

$-85 & * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment: 27"^ September, 2018 + FA0(0S)(C0MM) 212/2018 M/S THE RAMESHWARA JUTE MILLS LIMITED..... Appellant Through: Mr Rajeev Virmani, Sr Adv with Mr Neeraj Chaudhari, Ms Saakshi Agrawal and Mr Akash Sharma, Advs /V , versus M/S UNIVERSAL CABLES LIMITED & ORS Rospondents Through: Mr P. Chidambaram, Sr Adv with Ms kanika Singh, Ms Megha Gupta and Mr Sangram Singh, Advs for R-1 + FAO(OS) (COMM) 213/2018 JUTE INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED Appellant Through: :Mr^ 5 J^Rtt and Ms Aarushi tilcu, Advs versus IDBI CAPITAL MARKET SERVICES LIMITED & ORS.... Respondents Through: Mr P. Chidambaram, Sr Adv with Ms Kanika Singh, Ms Megha Gupta and Mr Sangram Singh, Advs for R-4 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANI. J. (ORAL) FAQ (OS) (Comm) 212/2018 & 213/2018 page / of 6 cr. 1. The present appeals are directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.11.2015. While entertaining this appeal on 18.11.2015, the following interim order was passed:- "It is for these reasons that insofar as the 2,705,553 additional shares are concerned, status quo shall be maintained with regard to them as of today. Insofar as the 8,859,574 shares are concerned which fall under categories 'A' and 'B', there is no dispute at this stage. We are making it clear that the order passed by us today would be subject to the final orders that would be passed in appeal." 2. Thereafter the present appeals were disposed of when the following orders were passed on 19.01.2017:- "We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length. We are informed that the plaint has been amended on 11.02.2016. When the impugned order was passed it was on the basis of the original plaint. . Werare further informed that the appellants herein, who are the fplamfiffs i^ the two suits, have filed the applications under Otder:;39 'Ru^ 1&2 CPC which are now pending before the learned Singld Jud^ and are slated to be heard on 25.01.2017. The learned counsel for the I" N respondents also points out that they have also moved composite applications in both, the suits,-;Ohe each, under Order 7 Rule 10 and Order 7 Rule 11 CPC* for return of the plaint and/or rejection of the plaint. Those applications are also listed on 25.01.2017. On the first date, on which these appeals came up before us, we had passed an interim order directing that status quo be maintained in respect of 2,705,553 additional shares of Universal Cables Limited as of that date. With regard to the shares which fell in the category A and B, we had recorded that there was no dispute at tha;t stage. FAQ (OS) (Comm) 212/2018 <6 213/2018 in The said order has continued till today. We are of the view that since the plaint has been amended and the entire issue of grant or non-grant of interim orders as also the issue of whether the plaint is to be returned or rejected is under consideration of the learned Single Judge, the same ought to be considered by the learned Single Judge independent of the impugned order and the interim order that we have passed. But, to have continuity in the matter, we are directing that the interim order shall continue till 25.01.2017 or if, for any reason the learned Single Judge is not available on that date, then, till the first date of hearing thereafter. On which date, it shall be open to the learned Single Judge to pass any appropriate order whether contihuing or dis-continuing or modifying the interim order "thatj we have passed. We are making it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and the learned Single Judge would take a call independent of anything that has franspired before the learned Single Judge and/or this Bench. We are making it clear that the interim order granted by lis would cease to operate on the first date on which the leamdd Single Judge takes up the matter and he shall independeritfy, pass an order whether continui