AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH v. Sonica Malhotra & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Companies Act, 2013 ss. 397, 399, 402, 403
Judgment
Appellants through Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sekhar Verma, Advocate. Respondents through Mr. Vibhu Bhakhru, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohit Khanna and Ms. Priyambada Mishra, Advocates. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] This Company Appeal is directed against the order dated
28.06.2012 passed by the Company Law Board at New Delhi [for short 'the Board'] whereby the inquiries being held by Joint Director [Inspection] and Registrars of Companies, Delhi and Kanpur pursuant to the complaints made by the appellants, have been stayed. The afore-stated order has been passed in CP No. 48 [ND] of 2012, moved by respondents No. 1 to 3 under Sections 397 to 399, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956 and which is pending consideration before the Board. Earlier also, Company Appeal No. 12 of 2012 was preferred by the appellants against some interlocutory orders passed by the Board which was disposed of on 04.05.2012 by a consent order and with a direction to the Board to make an endeavour to decide the petition preferably within a period of three months. It appears that the Board has not been able to decide petition for the reason that the Presiding Officer was changed meanwhile. The main petition is now listed for hearing on 24.09.2012. It is also apparent from the order under appeal as well as the subsequent orders passed by the Board that the stay application moved by respondents No. 1 to 3 has also not been finally disposed of and has been adjourned to be taken up with the main case. In these circumstances and as agreed to by the counsel for the parties, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this appeal with a direction that if not very inconvenient, the Board shall decide the petition on the date fixed and the parties shall extend full cooperation in this regard. The parties shall be at liberty to supplement and exchange the pleadings along with additional documents, if so required, by way of additional reply in the stay matter, before
07.09.2012. The parties shall also be at liberty to send their pleadings to the Central Government, who may assist the Board, however, without the aid and assistance of any opinion expressed by the Registrars of Companies or the Joint Director [Inspection]. If the petition can not be taken up for final disposal on the date fixed due to unforeseen circumstances, the Board shall fix the matter on an early date and preferably within two weeks. Disposed of. Dasti. August 16, 2012. dinesh ( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Companies Act, 2013 — ss. 397, 399, 402, 403.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 16 Aug 2012. The bench was SURYA KANT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.