2009 (7) TMI 756

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....respondents in company petition before the Company Law Board. Therefore, it is appropriate to dispose of the two appeals by a common order by referring to the parties as they are arrayed in Company Petition No. 22 of 2005 before the Company Law Board. 2. The petitioner filed the petition under sections 111A, 163, 196, 237(b), 397, 398, 402, 403, 406, 408 and Schedule XI of the Companies Act, 1956, challenging the allotment of 20 lakhs shares of Rs. 10 each made on 25-4-2003, in M/s. S.S. Organics Ltd. (hereafter called "the company") in exclusion of the petitioner as oppressive and alleging several acts of misappropriation. The respondents moved Company Application No. 54 of 2005 questioning the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board to e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t merit any consideration. The principles laid down by the Apex Court in Sukanya Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya [2003] 5 SCC 531, having arisen in the context of the provisions of section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, in my considered view, have no application to the case on hand. I, therefore, do not hesitate to conclude that the acts of mismanagement and statutory violations set out in the company petition could be bifurcated and dealt with separately and accordingly jurisdiction could be exercised by the Bench to adjudicate the disputed issues in regard to the alleged acts of mismanagement and statutory violations. . . ." (p. 288) 3. The petitioner in his appeal mainly contends that the Company Law Board is not ve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y and inspection of documents, (b) enforcing the attendance of witnesses, (c) compelling production of documents or material objections, (d) examining witnesses on oath, (e) granting of adjournments, and (f) reception of evidence on affidavits. This would show that all the powers under the CPC are not vested in the Company Law Board. 6. In this context, a reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme in All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India [1996] 6 SCC 606. In the said case, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes directed the executive director of the Indian Overseas Bank (IOB) to stop promotion process pending further investigation into the allegation....