Supreme Court emphasizes expeditious disposal, fresh notice ordered, and document completeness directed The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition challenging an interim order by the Company Law Board, emphasizing no grounds for interference were ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition challenging an interim order by the Company Law Board, emphasizing no grounds for interference were established. The Court urged the expeditious disposal of the main petition and requested the Board to proceed without influence from prior High Court observations. In a separate case, the Court ordered a fresh notice to unserved respondent No. 7 and highlighted the failure of respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 to file counter affidavits despite opportunities provided. Rectification of missing orders and ensuring document completeness was directed by the Court.
Issues involved: Interference with an interim order passed by the Company Law Board, expeditious disposal of the main petition, service of notice to unserved respondent, failure to file counter affidavits.
In the first case (SLP(C) No. 17522/2008), the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition challenging an interim order passed by the Company Law Board on 24th November, 2006, stating that no grounds were made out for interference at that late stage. However, considering the importance of the issue involved, the Court requested the Company Law Board to expedite the disposal of the main petition (C.P. No. 114/2006) without being influenced by any previous observations made by the High Court in the impugned order.
In the second case (SLP(C) No. 161/2009), the Court noted that respondent No. 7 remained unserved and ordered for a fresh notice to be issued to them. Additionally, the Court highlighted the failure to file counter affidavits by respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 despite the opportunity provided. The office was directed to rectify missing orders in the file related to the previous case (SLP(C) No. 17522/2008) and ensure all relevant documents are in place.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI OCR ✕
of 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
