9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interference with an interim order passed by the Company Law Board, expeditious disposal of the main petition, service of notice to unserved respondent, failure to file counter affidavits.
In the first case (SLP(C) No. 17522/2008), the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition challenging an interim order passed by the Company Law Board on 24th November, 2006, stating that no grounds were made out for interference at that late stage. However, considering the importance of the issue involved, the Court requested the Company Law Board to expedite the disposal of the main petition (C.P. No. 114/2006) without being influenced by any previous observations made by the High Court in the impugned order. In the second case (SLP(C) No. 161/2009), the Court noted that respondent No. 7 remained unserved and ordered for a fresh notice to be issued to them. Additionally, the Court highlighted the failure to file counter affidavits by respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 despite the opportunity provided. The office was directed to rectify missing orders in the file related to the previous case (SLP(C) No. 17522/2008) and ensure all relevant documents are in place.
|
