Limitation and arbitration reference principles bar challenge where appeal was late and Company Law Board retained incidental jurisdiction.

An appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 was held to be time-barred because the filing exceeded the outer limit of sixty days plus a further sixty days on sufficient cause. The earlier interim order in a connected matter did not excuse limitation, and a later Supreme Court direction made the challenge redundant. On jurisdiction, filing a Section 8 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not by itself oust the Company Law Board's power to pass interlocutory or incidental orders before the statutory reference conditions are decided. The impugned orders were therefore not void ab initio, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 was barred by limitation. (ii) Whether the orders passed by the Company Law Board after the filing of the Section 8 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were without jurisdiction and void ab initio.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The limitation under Section 10F is sixty days from communication of the order, with a further extension of up to sixty days on sufficient cause. The appeal was filed beyond that outer limit, and the earlier interim order in a connected appeal did not amount to a finding that limitation could be ignored. The later direction of the Supreme Court also rendered the present challenge redundant.

Conclusion: The appeal was barred by limitation and this issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the orders passed by the Company Law Board after the filing of the Section 8 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were without jurisdiction and void ab initio.

Analysis: Filing of a Section 8 application does not by itself divest a judicial authority of jurisdiction to pass interlocutory or incidental orders. The authority must first determine whether the statutory requirements for reference to arbitration are met, and pending that decision supplemental proceedings can continue. The impugned orders were treated as part of such incidental proceedings and not as void for want of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Company Law Board did not lose jurisdiction, and the impugned orders were not void ab initio; this issue was decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Company Law Board's orders failed both on limitation and on merits, and the appeal stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Filing of an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not automatically oust the jurisdiction of the judicial authority to pass interlocutory or incidental orders unless the statutory conditions for reference to arbitration are first satisfied, and an appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 cannot be entertained beyond the maximum period of sixty days plus sixty days.

---