9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17/2014 under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 alleging the oppression and mismanagement of the affairs of the respondent No.1 Company Krishidhan Seeds Private Limited. The Company Law Board on 3.3.2014 had passed the interim order directing the respondents to maintain status quo in respect of immovable assets of the respondent No.1 Company. In a Miscellaneous Appeal at the instance of the respondents, this Court on 2.4.2014 had permitted the respondents to file an appropriate application for modification/vacating of interim order before the Company Law Board, and the Company Law Board on an application filed by the respondents, by order dated 25.4.2014 had modified the earlier order and had permitted sale of certain assets of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny error in rejecting these applications. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission. 6. This being an appeal under Section 10-F of the Companies Act, the scope of this appeal is confined to the question of law. Under Section 10-F of the Companies Act, appeal from the order of the Company Law Board lies only on question of law and unless the findings of the Company Law Board are perverse, based on no evidence or otherwise arbitrary, no interference is required because Company Law Board is the final authority on the facts. [See: [2008] 142 Comp Cas 235 (SC), Dr. P.P. Mohanan and others Vs. Westfort Hi-tech Hospital Ltd. and others]. An interlocutory order passed under Section 397-398 of the Act in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... audit. Since the appellant has the liberty to pray for the forensic audit at the appropriate stage, therefore, such a prayer can be made by the appellant again along with the prayer for forensic audit because the said prayer has not been examined by the Company Law Board and Company Law Board has observed that interim relief cannot be sought by the appellant in piecemeal. The issues which the appellant is raising before this Court are factual issues and the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law requiring consideration under Section 10-F of the Companies Act. The prayer made in C.A. No.225/2014 and 226/2014 were interim in nature and the impugned order of the Company Law Board is an interlocutory order, therefore, no inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
