SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Bom) 1548

S.J.KATHAWALLA
Union of India, represented by the Secretary – Appellant
Versus
Company Law Board, Mumbai Bench – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:Shyam Mehta, Senior Advocate, instructed by G. Hariharan, Advocate. For the Respondents:R2, Fredun De'Vitre, Senior Advocate, along with P.K. Samdani, Senior Advocate, Ciccu Mukhopadhyaya, Vaibav Mishra, Omar Ahmed, A. Siwach, instructed by M/s. Amarchand, Mangaldas, S.A. Shroff & Co., R4 to R6 & R8, Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate, along with N.H. Seervai, Senior Advocate, Sharan Jagtiani, Chirag Kamdar, Gerald Misquitta, Alok Patel, instructed by M/s. Mahendra Patel & Associates, R10, Darius Khambata, Senior Advocate, along with Prashant Beri, instructed by M/s. Beri & Co., Advocates.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Appellant – Union of India, represented by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, through the Regional Director, Western Region, has filed the present Appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 (“the Act”) seeking to set aside the Order dated 28th March, 2013, passed by Respondent No. 1 –the Company Law Board, Mumbai Bench (“the CLB”), disposing of Company Petition No. 62 of 2009 under Sections 397, 398 and 402 of the Act, chiefly on the ground that notice under Section 400 of the Act was not served by the CLB on the Appellant.

2. The above Appeal was admitted on 11th June, 2013, and is now taken up for final hearing.

3. The following Questions of Law are framed for consideration in the present Appeal:

(a) Whether the Order passed by the CLB, Mumbai Bench, dated 28th March, 2013 is nonest, ex facie not valid and the entire proceedings in Company Petition No. 62 of 2009, stand vitiated since the notice of the Application/Petition made by the Original Petitioner (Respondent No. 2) to the CLB under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act was not served on the Central Government by the CLB itself under the provisions of Section 400 of the Act?

(b) Whether the CLB, whil













































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top