Appeal whether can be filed against the order of Company Law Board.

K.A. SWAMI C.J.

This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the order dated October 15, 1993, passed by the learned single judge in A.A.O. No. 1017 of 1993 which was preferred against the order dated July 14, 1993, passed by the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in C. P. No. 40 of 1993. The Company Law Board, by the aforesaid order, restrained all the respondents in Company Petition No. 40 of 1993 from giving effect to any transfer or any transmission of shares in the said companies and also from increasing the issued and paid-up share capital in any manner whatsoever. They were also further restrained from disposing of or encumbering their fixed assets or investment except in the normal course of business. The company, in which petitioner No. 1 was a director, was also restrained from holding any board meetings till the date of the next hearing, without giving at least three days notice to the first petitioner either by registered A. D. post or through courier service under receipt along with a copy of the agenda for the board meeting. The petitioners and respondents were also permitted to approach the Bench at any time with proper application and copies served on the other parties in the event of any need for intervention. In addition to that, it was also further directed in paragraph 2 of the order as follows :

"All the applicants will serve copies of their applications on others before July 23, 1993, and these parties will file their replies before September 7, 1993, and counter-replies, if any, will be filed by October 7, 1993. As far as the main petition is concerned, the petition has already been served on all the parties, as per the affidavit of service filed by the petitioners. The respondents will file their replies on the main petition by September 7, 1993, and the petitioners will file their rejoinders, if any, by October 7, 1993. The case will come up for hearing on October 29, 1993, at 11 a.m. for continuing the arguments on maintainability and the main petition along with all other applications will be taken up for hearing on November 2, 1993, at 11 a.m. and the hearing will continue till November 5."

The learned single judge has held that as the maintainability of the petition was raised, the Company Law Board should have heard that question first before proceeding to decide the other questions involved in the petition. The learned single judge has also further held that it was also unnecessary to have called upon the respondents to file their replies to the main petition by September 7, 1993, and the petitioners to file their rejoinders by October 7, 1993, without deciding the question of maintain ability. In addition to this, the learned single judge has further directed that the maintainability of the company petition be decided expeditiously, preferably within a fortnight from the date of the order.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Letters Patent Appeal is preferred.

In the light of the contentions urged on both the sides, the following points arise for consideration :

(1) Whether the learned single judge should have entertained the appeal under section 10F of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") ?

(2) Whether this is a case in which the question of maintainability should have been decided as a preliminary issue ? and

(3) Whether the order under appeal requires to be interfered with ?

The appellants have filed Company Petition No. 40 of 1993 under sections 397 and 398 of the Act for the various reliefs set out in paragraph 8 of the petition. As the reliefs sought for run into several pages, we do not consider it necessary to incorporate the same. The respondents have not yet filed their objections. When the interim order was passed, some of the respondents raised an objection as to the maintainability of the petition itself and requested that the same should be decided as a preliminary issue. As already pointed out, the Company Law Board has negatived the conte