1999 (4) TMI 495

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on the terms and conditions set out in the agreement. Later differences cropped up between the two leading to filing of company Petition No. 9 of 1999 by respondent before the CLB under sections 397 to 407 of the Companies Act, 1956. The CLB put appellant on notice and passed interim order dated 25-2-1999 direct- ing it to grant inspection of its records, list whereof was indicated and to make available copies of records/documents. The CLB also granted appellant-company time to file a reply to company petition upto 20-3-1999. It seems that no reply was filed by the appellant and company petition was admitted to hearing on 26-5-1999. 2. The appellant feels aggrieved of interim order passed by the CLB dated 25-2-1999 and has filed this app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n its side. He sought support from Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh AIR 1993 SC 276 and G. Kasturi v. N. Murali [1992] 74 Comp. Cas.,661 (Mad.). 4. Shri Bharucha, L/c for respondent-company on the other hand contended that the interim order passed by the CLB was inocous in the facts and circumstances of the case and was only aimed at requiring the appellant to discharge its statutory obligation under the Act. He invited attention of the court to the annexure appended to the interim application filed before the CLB to show that the inspection sought for was otherwise covered by the relevant provisions of the Act. He sought support from Delhi High Court in Rajdhani Roller Flour Mills (P.) Ltd. v. Mangilal Bagri [1991] 70 Comp. Cas. 788 . 5....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... conduct of the company's affairs. Therefore, inspection of records of the company in a company petition under sections 397 to 407 could very well be said to be concerning the regulation of the company's affairs and cannot be treated to be outside the purview of the provision. 7. As such it is too much to say that the CLB had passed impugned interim order contrary to the terms of this provision when the Board was empowered to pass any such order which appeared to it just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It was the sole domain of the Board to adjudge and evaluate whether such order was just and equitable in the circumstances of the case. 8. The other issues raised by Shri Choudhary concerning the merit of the m....