9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an of the Company Law Board has ordered that the matter be heard by the Principal Bench. Heard Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned senior counsel with Ms. A.B. Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 on caveat. 2. The grievance on the part of the appellant appears to be that as per the notification dated March 17, 2008, the Principal Bench may consist of more than one Member, coupled with the power of the Chairman to transfer any matter pending before the Regional Benches to the Principal Bench either at the joint request of all the parties or for other reasons recorded in writing. It has been further submitted on behalf of the appellant that vide order dated January 28 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion to withdraw the present appeal with a view to move the Chairman of the Company Law Board for hearing of the matter by the Company Law Board, Principal Bench at New Delhi since as per the direction of this court, the matter was to be heard by the Principal Bench. Whereas, Mr. Soparkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that the matter in fact is being heard by the Principal Bench. Permission granted. Disposed of as withdrawn. 4. It appears that thereafter an application has been moved to the Chairman of the Company Law Board to decide on the point as to whether the Principal Bench, New Delhi is hearing the matter or the matter should be heard by the other bench with the different composition of the members. Therea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d pending In the New Delhi Bench could be heard by him or Smt. Vimla Yadav, Member (Technical). Under these circumstances, when the Chairman of the Company Law Board has found it for issuance of no direction in the matter, we find that no interference is called for on the ground as sought to be canvassed. 6. Before parting we may record that it is not the choice of any litigant to have his matter adjudicated or heard by the Member or the Bench of his choice or subject to his convenience. If such rights are given to any litigant it would affect the sanctity of hearing before a quasi-judicial authority and in the present case rather a statutory body. All such powers vest with the Chairman, who is the administrative head of the Company Law Bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
