1. Admit. By consent of the parties, the present appeal was heard finally at the admission stage and is disposed of by this Judgment.

2. The appellants have formulated following questions of law for determination of this Court :

A. Whether the CLB does not have the power to review its earlier Order when the earlier order was not obtained on fraud or fabricated documents?

B. Whether the CLB could not have entertained an application filed by the 1stRespondent, which was in effect and even stated to be for review of an earlier order passed by the CLB?

C. Whether the CLB could not have vacated its Order dated May 21, 2012 on the same grounds on the basis of which the Order dated May 2012 was passed?

D. Whether the CLB is required to “pronounce” its orders and whether an order merely posted by speed post without its being “pronounced” is not a judicial order in the eyes of law?

E. Whether the CLB could not have permitted the 1st Respondent from implementing a resolution purportedly passed at its Extraordinary General Meeting when :

(i) the CLB itself permitted amendment of the Company Petition impugning the convening of the said EOGM, and

(ii) the CLB had adjourned another