TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 and dispose of all at a time by passing a common judgment and/or order as early as possible - matter remitted back with rider - Decided in favour of appellant. - A.C.O No.136 of 2013, A.P.O No.216 of 2013, C.P No.1 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 16-9-2013 - Jyotirmay Bhattacharya,JJ. For the Appellants : Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta, Advocate, Mr. Ravi Kapur, Advocate Mr. Amit Agarwalla Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra, Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, Mr. Debangsu Basak, Ms. Manju Bhuteria, AdvocateMr. Jishnu Chowdhury, AdvocateMr. Paritosh Sinha, Advocate ORDER The propriety of an order passed by the Company Law Board, New Delhi Bench (CLB) on 15th July, 2013 in C.P No. 01 of 2010 is under challenge in 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 wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... main case first and thereafter to argue the aforesaid interlocutory applications. The legality of the said order is under challenge in this appeal. Let me now consider as to how far the Company Law Board (CLB) was justified in passing the aforesaid direction in the facts of the instant case. The appellants/petitioners herein filed a company petition being C.P No.01 of 2010 claiming various reliefs therein by alleging oppression and mismanagement of the company concerned viz., Birla Corporation Ltd. Amongst various allegations on which the said company petition was found, siphoning of the fund of the said company by way of donation through Madhav Prasad Priyamvada Birla Apex Charitable Trust, is the major allegation against the respondents herein. Though initially no relief by way of permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from siphoning the fund of the said company by way of donation through Madhav Prasad Priyamvada Birla Apex Charitable Trust was prayed for in the main company petition, but subsequently such relief was introduced in the main petition by way of amendment. Identical relief by way of interim injunction during the pendency of the main proceeding bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der for hearing the interlocutory applications first before the main matter is taken up for hearing, it is within the wisdom of the Trial Court to decide as to the matter which should be heard first:‐ (i)In the case of Kanchusthabam Satyanarayana Vs‐ Namudari Atchutaramayya reported 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 relating to siphoning of the company s fund by way of donation through a particular group of trust managed by the Lodha Family is involved in both the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I cannot agree with the submission of Mr. Mukherjee that the Company Law Board was justified in exercising its wisdom in changing the order of hearing of the interlocutory applications and the main matter. After hearing the Learned Advocate of the parties and after considering the materials on record this court feels that justice would be subserved if the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner for interim injunction and the application filed by the respondent for dismissal thereof are considered in isolation of the main proceeding and prior to its disposal . However, since the hearing of the main case was consolidated with the hearing of these two interlocutory application, with consent of parties, this court, by giving effect to such agreement arrived at between the parties, disposes of this appeal by directing the Company Law Board to hear out those two interlocutory applications along with the parent proceeding being C.P No.01 of 2011 and dispose of all at a time by passing a common judgment and/or order as early as possible but positively within one month form the date of communication of this order with this rider that in the event the Company Law Board finds that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
