TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his petition the impugned order dated 17-8-1995 (Ex. 5) passed by the respondent No. 1, whereby, the representation of the petitioner-company for seeking exemption from provisions of rule 3( i )( a ) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 for keeping deposits beyond the period of maturity and up to 8 years with effect from 1-4-1998 has been rejected. 2. On several grounds raise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner by submitting that the impugned order at Ex. 5 is not an appealable order and no appeal lies against this order. Whether the appeal lies or not, I am not required to go into this because I am of the considered opinion that before passing impugned order at Ex. 5 the respondent No. 1 ought to have heard the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner he could have passed the order. 4. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany in its letter which is referred to in the impugned order at Ex. 5. It is further stated in the impugned order that application under section 58A(8) of the Act does not lie in respect of deposits which have matured in view of the subsequent provision of section 58A(8)/(10). 6. Thus, it is clear that on aforesaid grounds the representation of the petitioner was rejected. It may be an admi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve arrived at the conclusion which he has arrived at by the impugned order at Ex. 5. In that case, if such order was appealable then this Court would not have interfered and relegated the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal. 7. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The impugned order at Ex. 5 is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondent No. 1 is directed to cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
