Caveat notice under civil procedure does not by itself nullify proceedings absent prejudice, limiting writ interference.

A caveat under Section 148A CPC entitles the caveator to notice of hearing, but a failure to serve such notice does not automatically render Company Law Board proceedings a nullity or destroy jurisdiction. Interference is warranted only where the caveator shows specific prejudice or special damage; here, no order was passed against the caveators and no such prejudice was established. The availability of an alternate statutory remedy under the Companies Act, 1956 also made writ intervention inappropriate. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable on that ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether failure by the Company Law Board to serve notice on caveators under Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure rendered the proceedings and orders passed therein a nullity, and whether interference under writ jurisdiction was warranted.

Analysis: The lodging of a caveat under Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure entitles the caveator to be informed of the hearing, but it does not automatically confer an unconditional right to be heard, especially when the caveator is not recognised as a party. A breach of the caveat notice requirement, by itself, does not nullify the proceedings or strip the tribunal of jurisdiction. Such a defect would justify interference only if specific prejudice or special damage is shown. On the facts, no order was passed against the caveators and no special prejudice was demonstrated. The availability of an alternate statutory remedy before the Company Law Board and under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 also made writ intervention inappropriate.

Conclusion: Failure to serve notice on the caveators did not render the Company Law Board proceedings a nullity, and the writ petition was not maintainable for interference on that ground.

---