TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court sets deadlines for filing reply, rejoinder, and interlocutory application. Company Law Board expected to decide promptly.</h1> The appeal was disposed of with the appellant permitted to file a reply by 03.09.2007, a rejoinder by 10.09.2007, and an interlocutory application to be ... - Issues involved: Appeal against ex-parte adinterim order by Company Law Board regarding alleged share dilution and relief sought.Issue 1: Ex-parte adinterim order challengeThe appeal was directed against the ex-parte adinterim order dated 02.08.2007 passed by the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Company Petition No.111 of 2007. The Company Petition was filed by respondent No.1 alleging that their 50% shareholding had been diluted by the illegal acts of another group. The Company Law Board had directed that the respondent Company shall not deal with 25% of the built-up area until further order, maintaining the status quo regarding the composition of the Board. The appellant, AnandRao Gaekwar, raised contentions that he was not a necessary party and that the Company Law Board could not have granted any relief adversely affecting him. However, the Court did not permit these contentions as the Company Law Board had already provided an opportunity for the appellant to file a reply, which had not been done by the specified date. The Court disposed of the appeal in similar terms as another appeal, with a minor modification regarding the deadline for filing the reply by the appellant.Issue 2: Disposal of the appealThe appeal was disposed of with the appellant being permitted to file a reply by 03.09.2007, the rejoinder by 10.09.2007, and the interlocutory application to be heard by the Company Law Board expeditiously, preferably by 30.09.2007. The Court expected the Company Law Board to decide the interlocutory application within the specified time limit. The present appellant was allowed to raise any preliminary issue regarding their necessity as a party, which would be decided along with the interlocutory application filed by the original petitioner. The appeal was accordingly disposed of, leading to the disposal of the Civil Application for stay as well.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
