1995 (12) TMI 269 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues: Application for interim order to quash Company Law Board's order, Stay of proceedings in Company Petition, Maintainability of appeal under section 10F, Stay of proceedings before the CLB, Interim relief application for appointment of administrator, Parallel proceedings concern, Dismissal of Company Application.

The judgment addresses various issues arising from an application seeking an interim order to quash an order passed by the Company Law Board (CLB) and to stay proceedings in Company Petition No. 53 of 1994. The Court rejected the application to set aside the CLB's order, emphasizing the inability to do so at that stage. The Court then discussed the maintainability of the appeal under section 10F of the Act, noting that it lies only on a question of law. While the Court was not impressed by the appellant's grievance, it admitted the appeal and allowed the appellant to amend the memo of appeal. The Court also clarified that proceedings before the lower court need not be stayed merely because an appeal is admitted unless ordered by the Appellate Court for sufficient cause, which was not found in this case. Thus, the application for a stay of proceedings before the CLB was rejected.

Furthermore, the judgment addressed an interim relief application filed by the respondents seeking various directions, including the appointment of an interim administrator. The Court passed a limited interim order allowing the CLB to proceed with the hearing of the application for interim relief. The Court directed the CLB to dispose of the application within eight weeks and specified a two-week period before the appointed administrator could take charge. The parties were granted the liberty to approach the Court for further orders if aggrieved by the CLB's decision.

Moreover, the judgment considered the argument against allowing parallel proceedings, concluding that the appellants would not suffer prejudice if the proceedings before the CLB continued. The Court dismissed Company Application No. 645 of 1995, stating that the appellants could seek relief from the Court as an Appellate Court if necessary. The Prothonotary & Senior Master was directed to provide an authenticated copy of the order to the CLB promptly, allowing the parties to act based on an ordinary copy duly authenticated by the Company Registrar. Finally, the issuance of a certified copy was expedited, marking the conclusion of the judgment.