Caveat notice under civil procedure does not automatically void Company Law Board proceedings absent special prejudice or jurisdictional defect.

Lodging a caveat under Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure does not create an automatic right to be heard in every proceeding, and failure to notify the caveator is not by itself enough to invalidate the proceedings or render the resulting order void. On the facts described, no special prejudice beyond non-service was shown, and the dispute lay before a specialised statutory forum with an alternate remedy under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956. The writ court therefore declined to bypass the statutory framework or treat the Company Law Board proceedings as a nullity, and no writ interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether failure to serve notice upon a caveator under Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure renders the proceedings and orders of the Company Law Board a nullity and justifies interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The lodging of a caveat under Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure does not by itself create an automatic right to be heard in every proceeding, and the question of hearing remains for the concerned forum to decide in the facts of the case. A failure to notify the caveator is not, by itself, sufficient to invalidate the proceedings or make the resulting order void. The record disclosed no special prejudice or damage to the petitioners apart from the alleged non-service, and the dispute also involved a specialized statutory forum with an alternate remedy under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956. In these circumstances, the writ court declined to bypass the statutory framework or treat the proceedings before the Company Law Board as a nullity.

Conclusion: The failure to serve notice on the caveators did not render the Company Law Board proceedings or orders a nullity, and no writ interference was warranted.

---