Summary
The Supreme Court recalled its 17 May 2018 order concerning Writers & Publishers’ refund claim arising from the failed Super Bazar revival. Important audit findings and stakeholder interests had not received a full hearing because the Union and Super Bazar were unrepresented after the former liquidator instructed counsel not to appear. A fresh hearing was required before determining what amount, if any, was payable. The Court dismissed WPL’s contempt petitions based on non-compliance with the recalled order and left the competing financial claims for determination after hearing all affected stakeholders.
Issues
- Whether the 17 May 2018 order should be recalled because important facts and stakeholders had not been heard.
- Whether WPL’s contempt petitions survived recall.
- What further hearing was required before determining any refund.
Held
- The failed revival had led to a 2016 refund arrangement involving audit and CAG verification. The later 17 May 2018 order accepted WPL’s objections on interest and losses, but important concerns about the accounts and stakeholder interests had not been fully presented when that order was made. (¶¶ 5–10, 13–19)
- The former liquidator’s written instructions preventing counsel from appearing had left the Court without the full perspective of the Union and Super Bazar. The audit irregularities verified by the CAG required careful scrutiny, and the public interest and interests of employees and creditors required participation in the hearing. (¶¶ 14, 17, 19–20)
- Before a final determination of what amount, if any, was due to WPL, a full hearing had to be given to the Union, CAG, present liquidator, WPL, employees’ union and creditors’ association. The Court did not finally adjudicate the audit disputes, the former liquidator’s motives or the competing payment claims. (¶ 19–20)
- To prevent miscarriage of justice, proceedings were to be heard afresh on the position existing before the 17 May 2018 order, which was recalled. The ruling did not undo every earlier order concerning the revival or refund arrangement. (¶ 20–21)
- WPL’s Contempt Petition Nos.1207–1208 of 2018 for non-compliance with the recalled order no longer survived and were dismissed. The Union’s application was disposed of to the extent that it sought recall. (¶ 22)
Result
Order dated 17 May 2018 recalled; fresh hearing required before final financial determination. WPL’s consequent contempt petitions dismissed and the Union’s application disposed of insofar as it sought recall.