9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this appeal at the instance of the appellants/petitioners. By the said order the appellants/petitioners were directed to argue the main case namely C.P No. 01 of 2010 first and thereafter to argue interlocutory applications being C.A No. 332 of 2011 and C.A No. 338 of 2011. Such direction was given by the Company Law Board (CLB) by taking into consideration the earlier two orders of this Hon'ble court passed in two different appeals. One of such orders was passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court on 26th September, 2011 in A.P.O No.267 of 2011 (Birla Corporation Ltd. ‐Vs‐ Birla Education Trust and Ors.) which was heard analogously with A.P.O No.268 of 2011 (Madhav Prasad Priyamvada Birla Apex Charitable Trust and Anr. -Vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er order which was passed by this court on 26th September, 2011 in A.P.O No.267 of 2011 and A.P.O No.268 of 2011 directing the CLB to reconsider these two interlocutory applications relating to interim injunction matter lost its force in view of the subsequent order passed by this court on 10th May, 2013 in subsequent appeal being A.P.O No.154 of 2011 whereby the main case was directed to be considered on merit and thus by following the subsequent directions passed by this court in the said appeal, the Company Law Board (CLB) passed an order on 15th July 2013, by directing the petitioner to argue the main case first and thereafter to argue the aforesaid interlocutory applications. The legality of the said order is under challenge in this ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e objection to the main petition being C.P No. 01 of 2011. Considering the fact that a common issue was involved in both the main case and the interlocutory proceedings, the Company Law Board might have thought that for speedy and expeditious disposal of the main proceeding, both the main case and the interlocutory applications should be heard analogously. In fact, parties also thought that justice would be subserved if the main proceeding being C.P No. 01 of 2010 was heard along with the aforesaid two interlocutory applications. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the company petition No. 01 of 2010 was listed along with those two interlocutory applications for hearing on 19th, 20th & 21st March, 2012. In fact, on 2nd May, 2013 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in AIR 2005 SC 2010 (ii) In the case of Reserve Bank of India & Anr. -Vs‐ Ramkrishna Govind Morey reported in AIR 1976 SC 830 Let me consider as to how far the Company Law Board was justified in exercising its wisdom in changing the order of hearing the main compnay petition and the interlocutory application, with reference to the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. No doubt, on bare perusal of the pleadings of the parties in connection with the interlocutory application as well as the main company petition at a glance, an impression may be developed that the valuable time of the Company Law Board may be saved, if the main company petition is considered along with the said interlocutory application as identical issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money value. Whereas the relief by way of permanent injunction claimed in the main proceeding is considered on the basis of the pleadings and evidence of the respective parties with reference to their conflicting claims over their full‐proof legal rights relating to the subject matter of dispute in the main proceeding. As such even though a common issue is raised in the parent proceeding as well as in the interlocutory proceeding, the said issue cannot be decided by consolidating the hearing of the parent proceeding with the interlocutory proceeding as the principles on which the said issue is required to be decided at different stages of the parent proceeding is differ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the main proceeding being C.P No.01 of 2010 cannot be disposed of within the time limit as fixed above, the Company Law Board will have to decide and dispose of those two interlocutory applications filed by the respective parties within the time as fixed above and thereafter will proceed to dispose of the main proceeding as expeditiously as possible so that main proceeding can also be disposed of by the end of December, 2013. This direction is given by this court by keeping in mind the direction passed by this court on 26th September, 2011 in A.P.O No.267 of 2011 and A.P.O No. 268 of 2011, whereby the Company Law Board was directed to re‐hear these interlocutory applications, as in my view the effect of such decision passed in these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
