CLB exceeded authority in review; Appeal successful due to unjustified delay and lack of evidence.

The court held that the Company Law Board (CLB) exceeded its authority by using inherent powers to review its orders, as the power of review was not explicitly granted by the regulations. The respondents' delay in filing the rejoinder was deemed unjustified, with no evidence supporting allegations of misleading statements or fabricated documents. As a result, the appeal was successful, and the CLB's order was overturned.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Review Power of Company Law Board under Regulations 43 and 44.
2. Condonation of Delay in Filing Rejoinder.
3. Allegations of Misleading Statements and Fabricated Documents.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Review Power of Company Law Board under Regulations 43 and 44:
The appellants challenged the Company Law Board's (CLB) authority to review its own orders, arguing that such power was not explicitly conferred by the regulations. The appellants contended that the omission of Regulation 27, which previously allowed for review, indicated a deliberate legislative intent to remove this power. The court noted that inherent powers under Regulation 44 could not substitute for the explicitly omitted review power. The inherent powers are meant to ensure justice and prevent abuse of process but cannot be used to reintroduce a power that was specifically removed. The court cited Supreme Court rulings, emphasizing that review power must be conferred by law and cannot be assumed.

2. Condonation of Delay in Filing Rejoinder:
The respondents filed an application for condonation of delay, claiming they were not provided with complete inspection and certified copies of documents, which caused the delay in filing the rejoinder. The CLB initially granted multiple extensions, emphasizing the importance of timely filings. Despite this, the respondents failed to file the rejoinder within the stipulated time, leading to the forfeiture of their right to file. The court found that the respondents had multiple opportunities and were aware of the deadlines, making their delay unjustifiable. The court highlighted that the respondents did not raise any objections about the inspection or document copies during the relevant hearings, undermining their claims.

3. Allegations of Misleading Statements and Fabricated Documents:
The respondents alleged that the CLB's earlier orders were based on misleading statements and fabricated documents by the appellants. The court examined the timeline and found no evidence supporting these allegations. The respondents did not raise these issues during earlier proceedings, and there was no application for condonation or extension of time based on such grounds. The court concluded that the CLB's decision to review its orders based on these allegations was against the record and unsustainable.

Conclusion:
The court determined that the CLB overstepped its authority by invoking inherent powers to review its orders, as the power of review was specifically omitted from the regulations. The respondents' delay in filing the rejoinder was not justified, and there was no substantial evidence of misleading statements or fabricated documents. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the CLB's order was set aside.

---