TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 583
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....days in preferring this appeal. The Misc. Civil Application No. 21244/2009, accompanied by the affidavit, is filed by the appellant, praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Notice had been issued to the respondents who are represented by their counsel for M/s. J. Sagar Associates and Sri Vijay Desai, learned advocate appears for the first respondent. 3. Though, Sri S.S. Naganand, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants, points out that the notices issued to the respondents are not yet responded, we find that not of much significance. 4. As no serious opposition is aired against the application filed for condonation of delay, the Misc. Civil Application No. 21244/09 is allowed, accepting the contents of the affi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roof of service for both, before this Bench within a period of two weeks; (d)The Respondents are at liberty to apply." 8. It is making use of the liberty under clause (d) of this order, the appellant had come up with the application under section 403 praying for vacating of this order. The application had been opposed to by the Company-petitioner by filing written objections. The Company Law Board took up the application for examination, resulting in the impugned order. 9. It is purporting to be aggrieved by this order, particularly, sustaining the order dated 8-5-2009 insofar as it relates to the observations contained at sub-paragraph (b), that the present appeal is preferred under section 10F of the Act. 10. The Registry had raised a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e question as to whether an appeal of the present nature under section 10F of the Act is tenable as against the orders passed by Company Law Board on Interim Application and during the pendency of the main application which can be examined in a case where it is directly in issue and parties make it an issue and particularly if the respondent who is put on notice, were to join issue on the maintainability of the appeal. 13. We are proceeding to examine the merits of the appeal independent of the aforestated question. We find the present appeal is absolutely meritless, notwithstanding the very spirited and vehement submissions made not only by Mr. Nandish, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, but also by Mr. S.S. Naganand, learned se....