2011 (4) TMI 1480

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mentioned. Respondents to file reply within a week, rejoinder, if any within a week thereafter. CP & CAS to be argued on 4th & 13th May at 10:30 a.m. and on 9th May 2011 at 2:30 p.m." The ground of appeal is that the Board could not have ordered Company Application No.210/11 to be heard along with the company petition. On the face of the order, no question of law arises from it. But after hearing the argument of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, it seems that some question of law arises from this order. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that their application, CA No.210/11 is in the nature of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, it has to be heard first. Learned Counsel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2 of the CPC. It must, therefore, be held that the Company Law Board has no power to decide preliminary issues nor can exercise powers under CPC other than those conferred under section 10E(4C) of the Companies Act." Therefore, he submits that the Company Law Board has no power to determine any preliminary issue. It is true that Section 10E (4C) of the Companies Act, 1956, specifies certain powers of a Civil Court to be vested in the Company Law Board. Power and procedure are, in my judgement, completely different concepts. By Section 10E (4C) certain coercive powers of the Court are conferred on the Company Law Board. But the procedure followed by the Court are certain rules of justice which are followed by it to deal with a case.....