1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, (for short ‘Act’) challenging the judgment and order dated 12th January, 2012 whereby the appellant company's petition being Co. Pet. 95/ND/2010 has been dismissed by the Company Law Board (for short 'CLB') after observing as under:-

“35. ............

(ix) I find no way to grant a relief and give direction to the R-1 Company to give representation on the Board of the R-1 Company to the Petitioners in C.P. No.95, who of their own had agreed to hold 50% shares without asking for any representation on Board. It is settled law that directorial complaints cannot be entertained in a petition under Sections 397/398 of the Act unless it is a composite complaint and is in the case of a Company in the nature of quasi-partnership. On facts and in law the R-1 Company can in no manner be held to be a Company in the nature of a quasi-partnership, there is no equal shareholding, there is no equal representation on the Board, nor is there any oral or written understanding to that effect. In the Articles of Association and Memorandum of Association there is no agreement or understanding amongst its shareholder