2013 (10) TMI 1481 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues involved: Seeking directions for framing regulations regarding lodging caveats before the Company Law Board (CLB) and regulating filing of caveats u/s 148A of CPC, challenging the orders of CLB as nullity.

Summary:
1. The writ petition sought directions for framing regulations by the CLB and this court regarding lodging caveats u/s 148A of CPC and challenging certain orders of the CLB as nullity.
2. The petitioners filed a caveat before the CLB and sought to establish their interest in the matter, intending to request impleadment as an intervenor.
3. The petitioners argued that the CLB made orders without serving requisite papers to the caveators, leading to the orders being considered nullity and requiring to be quashed.
4. The main question for consideration was whether the failure to provide notice to the caveators renders the proceedings and orders passed a nullity.
5. The Company Law Board Regulations do not specifically address the applicability of Section 148A of CPC, but Regulation 44 empowers the Bench to make necessary orders for the ends of justice.
6. The lodging of a caveat entitles the caveator to bring it to the court's notice, but the right to be heard depends on the court's determination.
7. Previous judgments establish that failure to provide notice under Section 148A does not automatically render the order a nullity.
8. The court found that the failure to provide notice alone is insufficient to vitiate the proceedings unless special prejudice is demonstrated.
9. The court emphasized the limited writ jurisdiction and the availability of alternate remedies under the Companies Act for grievances.
10. The court expressed concern over implicating CLB officials unnecessarily and cited previous cases deprecating such actions.
11. The petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioners to pursue their application before the CLB, without expressing any opinion on the merits of their claims.