https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106771 The court determined that appeals under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 should be heard by the company judge of the High Court, not the Division Bench. The court clarified the distinction between Section 10F and Section 483 appeals, emphasizing the statutory framework and past practices. It concluded that the Company Law Board (CLB) is a quasi-judicial tribunal, not a full-fledged court. The court overruled objections to the appeal's maintainability before the company judge, scheduling the matter for a hearing in two weeks. en-us Fri, 24 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Mar 2012 16:18:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106771 The court determined that appeals under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 should be heard by the company judge of the High Court, not the Division Bench. The court clarified the distinction between Section 10F and Section 483 appeals, emphasizing the statutory framework and past practices. It concluded that the Company Law Board (CLB) is a quasi-judicial tribunal, not a full-fledged court. The court overruled objections to the appeal's maintainability before the company judge, scheduling the matter for a hearing in two weeks. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 24 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106771