TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (9) TMI 406
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gs under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Company Law Board may permit all the amendments to be incorporated without assigning any reason therefor. The order impugned in the company's appeal and in the appeal by the seventh respondent before the Company Law Board needs to be set out in its entirety :- "Heard, the parties on C.A. Nos. 131 and 132 of 2007. Considering the contents of the amendment application and the legal submissions as well as plethora of case laws relied upon by the parties as well as regulation 46 of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991, to consider real controversies between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of litigation I allow the petitioner to amend C.P. No. 46 of 2006. The petitioner to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for such order being passed, without the Tribunal having assigned the reasons that it ought to have in support of its conclusion. 5. The appellants in the two matters have referred to the judgments in CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 589 and rely on paragraphs 30 and 31 of the report. In that case, the Supreme Court was considering a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and the questions that can be considered in a reference. In the summary of the conclusion recorded at paragraph 31 of the report, it appears that if a matter was urged before the Tribunal (under the Income-tax Act) and such matter was considered or not considered, in either case it would be a matter covered by the order o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent for furnishing reasons is a facet of the principle of natural justice. To boot, section 10E of the Companies Act, 1956, under which the Company Law Board assumes jurisdiction, is referred to. Sub-section (5) of section 10E incorporates the principles of natural justice and, in any event, such principles would have applied even if there was no specific mention thereof. 8. The contesting respondents, the petitioners in the Company Law Board proceedings, submit that the amendments sought to be incorporated were on questions of fact and the Company Law Board was satisfied that such questions needed to be answered. The Company Law Board gave some reasons, it is submitted, that the new charges brought were necessary to be dealt with to eff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to be appreciated and reasons therefor ought to have appeared in the order. If judgments were cited, such of them as were relevant for deciding the matters in issue ought to have been referred to, discussed and relied upon or distinguished. 11. In passing the order under appeal, the Company Law Board has completely abdicated its jurisdiction, and obligation, as to the decision-making process. The order passed may as well be a rubber stamp prepared to be used in every case where the Company Law Board is of the opinion that the amendments prayed for should be allowed. There is no reference to any fact or the context in which the amendments were sought and allowed. There is no mention of what grounds were urged in opposition and why such ....