TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 965
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellants were directed to file a reply by 29.09.2009 and the respondent to file the rejoinder by 23.10.2009. The matter was thereafter posted for hearing on 11.11.2009. 3. The appellants filed their reply, however, instead of filing rejoinder, the respondents issued a notice dated 11.06.2010 to the appellants seeking inspection of the original documents referred to and relied upon by the appellants in their affidavit in reply. 4. By order dated 10.08.2010, the said application was allowed and the appellants were directed to produce the original documents as mentioned in letter dated 11.06.2010 from Sl. No. 1 to 6 and audit report of the Company from year the 2000 upto the latest before the Bench Officer on or before 31.08.2010 with liberty to the respondents or their nominee to inspect the original in the presence of the Bench Officer from 11 A.M. onwards on 01.09.2010. 5. Appellants by letter dated 01.10.2010, informed the Company Law Board that as directed by order dated 10.08.2010, inspection of the documents has been provided to the respondents, however, one of the respondent namely, Shravan Kumar Patel, refused to inspect some of the documents available for inspection. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... copy of the order to the parties to the petition and their advocates by post. It was further stated that Advocate Mr. Baddan, who appeared on that date was not aware of any such order passed by the Board and for the first time respondent had occasioned to see the order dated 18.10.2011. 10. This application was allowed by the Board by order dated 16.08.2012, on the ground that Company Law Board's order dated 18.10.2011 and 08.02.2012 were based on misleading statements of the appellants. The Board has further observed that the Company Law Board would have power to review its own order in case the finding and relief granted are based on fabricated and forged documents or the order is obtained through fraud of such dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim. 11. It is against the said order that the appellants have come with the above appeal raising the following question of law :- (i) Whether power of review not specifically conferred upon the Company Law Board by the Rules/Regulations statutorily framed, could still be exercised by the Board by restoring to the inherent powers conferred upon it under Regulations 44 of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991 ? 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s would affect the very basis of the claim. 15. As far as the contention of respondent that the order dated 18.10.2011 was not received, it could only be an irregularity and would not prejudice the respondent as their counsel Rajarathnam Baddan appeared before the Company Law Board on that day. Hence, it cannot be said that respondent was not aware of the said order. 16. As regards the second aspect which led the Board to exercise its inherent power, it is necessary to take note of the prayer made in the application CA 205/2010 and the two orders dated 18.10.2011 and 08.02.2012. 17. A careful perusal of the aforesaid application and orders, show that initially vide order dated 20.08.2009, time till 23.10.2009 was granted to the respondents to file rejoinder. Instead of filing rejoinder, the respondents asked for inspection of the original documents, 12 in number, by their application/letter dated 11.06.2010. The board by order dated 10.08.2010, directed the appellants herein to produce the original documents mentioned in the letter dated 11.06.2010 from Sl. No. 1 to 6 only and the audit report of the Company from the year 2000 upto the latest before the Bench Officer on or befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k remedies; (iv) The method of service of notice and process issued by the Bench; (v) The manner of filing reply and documents by respondent and filing of counter by the petitioner; (vi) Power to Board to set aside the ex-parte orders; (vii) Supply of certified copies; (viii) Enrichment of time; (ix) inherent power of Board etc; 22. Some of the relevant provisions of the regulations are required to be noted. The regulations which came into force with effect from 31.05.1991, originally contained a provision under the Regulation 27 conferring power on the Company Law Board to review its own order. However, Regulations 27 was specifically omitted by the Amendment Regulations of 1992. 23. Regulation 43 confers power upon the Board to enlarge the time fixed for the performance of any Act or the filing of any document or representation. Regulation 44 confers inherent powers to the Bench to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice to prevent abuse of process of the Bench. Regulation 45 empowers the Board to correct its orders either suo motu or an application by a party, if there are clerical or arithmetical mistake, or any error arising from any accidental slip or o....