Company Law Board procedure bars a co-respondent's counter-reply where regulations permit only the petitioner to reply.

A co-respondent before the Company Law Board had no right to file a counter-reply to another respondent's reply because the Regulations expressly permitted only the petitioner to file a counter-reply. The procedural scheme therefore excluded a subsequent pleading by one respondent against another respondent's reply. The inherent power provision could not be used to bypass that express bar, since inherent powers apply only where the Regulations are silent. The Court also found no breach of natural justice, as any allegations made by the co-respondent were not conclusively established against the appellant merely by being raised. Refusal of permission was therefore justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether a co-respondent before the Company Law Board could be permitted to file a counter-reply to the reply filed by another respondent, and whether such permission could be founded on the Company Law Board's inherent powers or principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The Regulations governing Company Law Board proceedings specifically permit the petitioner to file a counter-reply to a respondent's reply, but do not confer a similar right on one respondent to file a counter to another respondent's reply. The scheme of the Regulations thus excludes subsequent pleadings by a co-respondent in that situation. The inherent power provision can operate only where the matter is not covered by express regulation, and cannot be invoked to override a specific procedural bar. The Court also held that the apprehension of prejudice was unfounded because allegations made by a co-respondent could not be treated as conclusively established against the appellant merely on that basis, and therefore there was no violation of natural justice.

Conclusion: The refusal to allow the co-respondent's counter-reply was justified, and the appeal failed.

---