TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 283
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....puriah along with Shri Dhan Raj Bansal under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 and challenge in this appeal is made to an interlocutory order dated October 15, 2008, passed by the Company Law Board in Company Application No. 533 of 2008, filed in Company Petition No. 35 of 2005, which is still pending. 3. Company Petition No. 35 of 2005 is filed by M/s. Vindhya Telelinks Ltd., against various respondents, including respondent No. 1 herein, i.e., M/s. Rameshwara Jute Mills Co. Ltd., and the present appellants in the matter of proceedings under sections 397 and 398 read with sections 402, 403, 406 and 408 of the Companies Act. 4. It is seen from the records that in the pending Company Petition bearing No. 35 of 2005, respondent No. 22,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lants. It was submitted by him that an identical order dated October 15, 2008, passed in C. P. No. 57 of 2005 is already impugned in another petition M. A. (Comp) No. 2 of 2008, by M/s. Vindhya Telelinks Ltd., and is pending before this court. It is stated that in the said proceedings a Bench of this court had passed an order dated October 24, 2008, which was conditional in nature and even though the appellants herein were in know of the aforesaid interlocutory order passed in M. A. (Comp) No. 2 of 2008, by suppressing the aforesaid fact, have been successful in obtaining the interim order. Accordingly Shri S. P. Singh, the learned senior advocate, in support of I. A. No. 13001 of 2008 argued that as the appellants have obtained the interim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ightly granted by this court and the application for vacating stay is liable to be rejected. As far as suppression of facts is concerned, taking us through the pleadings and material available on record, the learned senior advocate emphasised that the allegation of suppression are not correct and the same are based on assumptions of the respondent. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. 9. From the records, it is clear that the company petition filed being Company Petition No. 35 of 2005 is pending consideration before the Company Law Board and at this stage the question of maintainability of the company petition and various other aspects, with regard to the merit of the company petition, need ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Under the English Law, a quasi-judicial authority need not give reasons unless required to do so by statute but now even there is also a definite shift in favour of the view that reasons should be given. In Flannery v. Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd. [2000] 1 All ER 373 (CA), at pages 377 and 378, comments have been made that the duty to give reasons (page 381 of [2000] 1 WLR) : ". . . is a function of due process and therefore of justice. Its rationale has two principal aspects. The first is that fairness surely requires that the parties especially the losing party should be left in no doubt why they have won or lost . . . The second is that a requirement to give reasons, concentrates the mind ; if it is fulfilled, the resulting decision is ....