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

1999 Supreme(Guj) 202

R.BALIA, ANIL R.DAVE
CONTEMPORARY TARGETT PRAFUL P. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
JEWEL BRUSHES PVT. LTD. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: A.C.GANDHI, MIHIR J.THAKOR, S.N.Soparkar, SINGHI AND BUCH

R. BALIA, J.

( 1 ) THIS application has been filed by the appellant making a prayer that O. J. Appeal No. 69 of 1998 which is against an order of Company Law Board be placed for hearing before a Single Judge of this Court as under the High Court Rules the matter is one which has to be transacted by a single Judge. The application is opposed by the respondents.

( 2 ) IT is contended by learned counsel for the applicant-appellant that the present appeal is preferred u/s 10f of the Companies Act, 1956. There is no provision under the Gujarat High Court Rules which require an appeal against the order of Company Law Board to be placed before a Division Bench.

( 3 ) OUR attention was invited to Rules 1, 2, 217 and 314 of the Gujarat High Court Rules 1993 laying the foundation of the contention that the appeal is against an order of the Company Law Board on an application moved by the appellant u/s 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 which have been rejected by the impugned order. Thus, this is an appeal against a special act and not arising from Civil Procedure Code. Rule 1 declares generally all jurisdiction of hearing to be with Division Bench except as otherwise provided by any law






















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