2009 (12) TMI 518

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y respondents Nos. 2 and 3 before the Company Law Board questioning the correctness and legality of the order passed in C. A. No. 34 of 2009 in C. P. No. 34 of 2009 ( Dirak GmbH v. S. D. Chakravarthy [2010] 153 Comp Cas 1 (CLB)). 2. The short question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the Company Law Board was justified in rejecting the application filed by the ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ingly the said application has been filed. The said application was not examined on the merits by the Company Law Board. However, the Company Law Board found that the original agreement dated May 7, 1998, or its duly certified copy thereof had not been filed and accordingly, on this short ground it held that the application itself was not maintainable, and accordingly C. A. No. 34 of 2009 ( Dirak .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s that when the original agreement is in the possession of the opposite party, the question of producing the same by an applicant would not arise. We find that the said decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 6. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated October 23, 2009, passed by the Company Law Board and remand the matter to the Company Law Board, Chennai for recons .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X