1995 (12) TMI 269

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5, passed by the Company Law Board (CLB), Principal Bench, New Delhi in Company Petition No. 53 of 1994 be quashed and set aside. It is not possible for the Court to set aside the order under Appeal at this stage. Prayer (a) of the application is rejected. 3. By prayer (b ) of the said application, the appellants have sought stay of all the proceedings including the hearing of Company Petition No. 53 of 1994, pending before the CLB, Principal Bench, New Delhi. For consider-ation of the said prayer, it is necessary to state a few facts. 4. Sometime in the month of May 1992, some of the shareholders of the first appellant-company filed Company Petition No. 259 of 1992 for winding up of the first appellant-company invoking section 433(f)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rred appeal before the Division Bench of this Court. On 5-9-1995, the CLB passed an order in this behalf. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereinafter for ready reference: "We heard the counsel on the maintainability of the petition on the ground that many of the allegations of mismanagement have been alleged in the appeal in Bombay High Court. Shri Datar, Advocate for the petitioner has given an undertaking that these allegations will not be put forward in the appeal. In view of this undertaking we are proceeding with the petition. Since all the proceedings are completed, the matter will be taken up for final hearing on 25th to 29th March, 1996 at 10-30 a.m. each day ..." 6. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....esult to the party applying for stay unless the order for stay is made. This is not one of such cases. I have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the application for stay of further proceedings in terms of prayer (b) of the application herein. Prayer (b) of the application is accordingly rejected. Let the proceedings continue on merits subject to the result of the appeal herein. 9. During the pendency of the above-referred petition before the CLB, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 had also preferred an application for interim relief. I have gone through the copy of the said application dated 18-11-1994, copy of which is to be found at page 74 in the paper book Part I. It appears that by the said application, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 hav....