( 1 ) THE principal question of law that has been urged is as to whether on an application for amendment of the petition in proceedings under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Company Law Board may permit all the amendments to be incorporated without assigning any reason therefor. The order impugned in the company's appeal and in the appeal by the seventh respondent before the Company Law-Board needs to be set out in its entirety :

"heard the Parties on CA Nos. 131 and 132/07. Considering the contents of the amendment application and the legal submissions as well plethora of case laws relied upon by the parties as well as Regulation 46 of the CLB, to consider real controversies between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of litigation ! allow the petitioner to amend cp No. 46/2006. Petitioner to file amended petition within a week's time. Respondents to file reply to the amended petition within four weeks thereafter. 'adjourned to 8. 10,2007 at 2:30 p. m. and 9. 10. 2007 and 10. 10. 2007 at 2:30 p. m. ,"

( 2 ) IT appears on a plain reading of such order that the Company Law board did, as it was obliged to, consider the contents of the amendment application. The order also records that legal submissions were made and that such legal submissions were also considered. The order also informs that a "plethora of case laws" was relied upon by the parties. This much, was recorded as to what transpired 'before the Company Law Board. As to the reasons for the order, Regulation 46 of the Company Law Board regulations is cited and the amendment application has been allowed "to consider real controversies between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. "

( 3 ) WITHOUT meaning any disrespect, that is the conclusion and not the reason. Reasons would be the links that would lead to such conclusion for such is a conclusion which is necessary for an amendment application to be allowed.

( 4 ) IT appears from the nature of charges sought to be incorporated by way of amendment that the petitioners before the Company Law Board proceedings have been more hard done by, by the cryptic order than by the alleged machinations of the persons in control of the affairs of the company. But the respondents cannot fall back on the merits of the amendments sought and the justification for such order being passed, without the Tribunal having assigned the reasons that it ought to have in support of its conclusion.

( 5 ) THE appellants in the two matters have referred to the judgments reported at AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1633 (Commissioner of Income-tax, bombay v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd.) and rely on paragraphs 30 and 31 of the report. In that case, the Supreme Court was considering a reference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 and the questions that can be considered in a reference. In the summary of the conclusion recorded at paragraph 31 of the report, it appears that if a matter was urged before the Tribunal (under the Income Tax Act) and such matter was considered or not considered, in either case it would be a matter covered by the order of reference. The appellants rely on such proposition in support of their contention that various questions of law were raised before the company Law Board and such questions find no mention in the impugned order. In such questions having been raised, albeit their not finding reference in the order, there was a substantial question of law raised thereon.

( 6 ) THE appellants next rely on the judgment reported at AIR 1981 supreme Court 1786 (Shah Babuial Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania) and on paragraph 120 of the report. At paragraph 120, Justice Fazal Ali has summarized his conclusions as to when an appeal would lie under Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellants rely on the first sub-paragraph to suggest that an order allowing an amendment would be an appealable order. However, for the purpose of the present proceedings, even though the Civil Pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document