( 1 ) WE have heard at length an appeal and a cross appeal from the judgment of the court below which was delivered on March 22, 1993, some two years after conclusion of arguments there.

( 2 ) THE matter was first opened and heard before another learned judge, who unfortunately retired, and then before the learned judge the case was heard out again ; the matter was also sometimes mentioned, which went on from time to time and ultimately the judgment was delivered.

( 3 ) THE application which was disposed of was an application made both under Section 397 and Section 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. At that time the High Court had jurisdiction to decide these matters and the substitution of the Company Law Board in the place of the High Court had not then come. Such substitution occurred in 1991.

( 4 ) THE arguments made on behalf of the appellants, being M. L. Bagri and his group, ranged for about a day and half in the beginning after which we called upon Mr. Nag to argue the case of the petitioner in the court below who, along with his family being wife and daughter are the cross appellants before us. Mr. Nag argued for some 15 days. In reply we could not hear Mr. Poddar, appeari

Click Here to Read the rest of this document