AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nadira Patherya, J.—In this 10F appeal the orders under challenge are dated 12 August 2013 (2014) 118 CLA 406 and 27 January, 2014 (2014) 120 CLA 440 Before the Company Law Board, Company Petition No. 450 of 2011 was filed under several sections of the Companies Act, 1956 but the relevant sections with which this court is concerned at present is section 111 and sections 397 and 398 Companies Act, 1956. By order dated 12 August, 2013, the said company petition was dismissed for the reasons set out therein. One of the reasons being that the original petitioners had not filed an application u/s 111 of the Companies Act, 1956, the application under sections 397 and 398 could not be maintained. Therefore, the company petition was dismissed. It is true that an appeal could have been filed from the said order by the original petitioners in Company Petition No. 450 of 2011 but instead of pursuing remedies in appeal, Company Application No. 586 of 2013 was filed whereby application for rectification was sought of the order dated 12 August, 2013 on the ground that the Company Law Board had accidentally slipped or omitted to note that the original petition filed before it was also u/s 111 of the 1956 Act. This Company Application No. 586 of 2013 was considered by the Company Law Board and was dismissed on 27 January, 2014 on the ground that Company Law Board had no power to rectify its own order as such power was not conferred on it by statute. It is from this order that this appeal has been filed and while challenging the said order, the order dated 12 August, 2013 has also been challenged. The appellants questioned the correctness of the order dated 12 August, 2013 may be in a wrong proceeding but such proceeding was ultimately dismissed and such challenge was within the period of thirty days. In fact, Company Law Board has also adjudicated on the said application and after hearing the parties has passed its order on 27 January, 2014. The said application was not dismissed on the date of presentation; therefore, the appellants will be entitled to the benefit of the proceedings initiated by it though incorrectly according to Company Law Board''s order.
Appeal u/s 10F is to be filed within sixty days and admittedly such sixty days has expired but within sixty days, an application was filed before the Company Law Board on which a decision has been taken. Therefore, this appeal filed cannot be thrown out at the threshold stage and, accordingly, is admitted.
No purpose will be served in keeping the said appeal pending. As the only issue involved is with regard to the maintainability of this appeal which has been discussed above, the order dated 27 January, 2014, is set aside so also the order of 12 August, 2013 whereby Company Petition No. 450 of 2011 was dismissed by overlooking the factum that a composite petition could be maintained u/s 111 and sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. This finds mention in the decision on which reliance has been placed by the Company Law Board reported in (1998) 93 CompCas 347
In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is disposed of. As no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed, allegations contained in the petition are not admitted.
It is made clear that the merits of the case have not been considered and it will be open for the Company Law Board to consider the case on merits. Urgent certified photocopies of this order be made available to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance with all requisite formalities.