9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (7) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e company and its other directors and shareholders. The petitioners seek special leave to appeal to this court from the order dated December 8, 1993, in Writ Petition No. nil of 1993 of the High Court of Calcutta, which, in turn, partially stayed the operation of an interlocutory order dated October 20, 1993, of the Company Law Board in a petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act brought before it by the petitioners-shareholders of the company, Harbans Lal Malhotra and Sons Ltd. complaining of suppression of the minority. It was urged before the Board by the petitioners that the collaboration arrangement embarked upon by the said company with Gillette was illegal and operated as oppression of the minority. The Company Law B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as on that date, the following subsequent developments before the date of hearing were not disclosed ..." (emphasis* supplied) The order then proceeded to specify those developments which, according to the Board, the respondents had not come forward to disclose. This interlocutory order of the Board was assailed by the respondents in a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court. The High Court made an interlocutory order staying the observations made by the Board that there were some suppressions of material information and also stayed the operation of that part of the order of the Company Law Board by which it said the company "shall not proceed further in the matter of collaboration ..." The respondents are not aggrieved by the Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ershadowed by anything that the court might observe here. But this objection has one fallacy. What then was the purpose of the petitioners' seeking these directions from the Company Law Board? In the ultimate analysis, the objection implies that as long as the interlocutory interdiction by the Board goes in favour of the petitioners, it could not be objected to as having effect on the other proceedings and only when it goes against the petitioners, it incurs this criticism. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us appropriate to set aside the order of the Calcutta High Court as really being unnecessary having regard to the real import of the order of the Company Law Board. The directions of the Board cannot be constr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
