1. Heard Sri Venkatesh Gupta, representing Sri K.Ramakrishna, counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Vijayabhaskar Mula, representing respondents 1 and 2.

2. Sri Venkatesh Gupta, representing Sri K.Ramakrishna, would contend that in the light of Sections 235, 236 and 237 of the Companies Act, 1956, appropriate directions can be issued even by a Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The counsel had also taken this Court through the respective stands taken by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the 2nd respondent in the counter affidavit filed in response to the affidavit filed by the petitioner.

3. On the contrary. Sri Vijayabhaskar Mula had taken this Court through the specific stand taken in the counter affidavit by the Registrar of Companies incharge, the 2nd respondent and would contend that the remedy, if any, available to the petitioner is to invoke the Company Law Board, in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and hence the writ petition itself is not maintainable. Incidentally, the learned counsel also touched the merits and demirts of the matter.

4. Heard the