Appeal emphasizes separate hearing for interlocutory applications for justice efficiency.

The appeal challenged the Company Law Board's decision to hear the main case before interlocutory applications, citing efficiency. The court disagreed, emphasizing the need to address interim relief separately to serve justice. It directed the Company Law Board to hear and decide on the interlocutory applications first, ensuring a common judgment within a specified timeframe. The court highlighted the importance of addressing the pending application seeking a restraint order on fund siphoning. The appeal was disposed of with modified directions, allowing parties to seek further guidance if necessary.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to the order passed by the Company Law Board directing the sequence of arguments in C.P No. 01 of 2010 and interlocutory applications C.A No. 332 of 2011 and C.A No. 338 of 2011. Justification of changing the order of hearing by the Company Law Board.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Order Sequence Challenge:
The appeal challenges the Company Law Board's order directing the appellants to argue the main case C.P No. 01 of 2010 before the interlocutory applications C.A No. 332 of 2011 and C.A No. 338 of 2011. The direction was based on previous orders from the court in related appeals, suggesting a consolidated hearing. The main petition alleged oppression and mismanagement, specifically siphoning of funds through a charitable trust. Initially, no permanent injunction was sought, but later added through an amendment. The interlocutory application sought interim relief similar to the main petition. The Company Law Board's decision to hear them together was challenged in the appeal.

2. Justification of Order Sequence Change:
The Company Law Board justified the sequence change based on wisdom and efficiency. The respondents supported this citing Supreme Court precedents allowing trial courts to decide the order of hearing. However, the court disagreed, emphasizing that the purpose of an interlocutory injunction would be defeated if heard after the main case. The principles for granting injunction differ from deciding permanent relief, making separate consideration necessary. The court concluded that justice would be better served by hearing the interlocutory applications separately before the main case, despite the parties' consent to consolidated hearing.

3. Court's Directions:
The court directed the Company Law Board to hear and dispose of the interlocutory applications before the main proceeding, ensuring a common judgment within a specified timeframe. The court considered previous court orders directing reconsideration of interlocutory applications and emphasized the need for the Company Law Board to address the pending interlocutory application seeking a restraint order on fund siphoning. The appeal was disposed of with modified directions, allowing parties to seek further directions if needed.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the appeal challenging the Company Law Board's order and provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and considerations involved in the judgment.

---