Heard.

2. Respondent No. 5 filed these applications, C. A. No. 61 of 2010 and C.A. No. 63 of 2010 for modifying the order dated January 12, 2010, passed by the Principal Bench, Company Law Board at Delhi, relating to restraining respondent No. 5 from alienating or creating any third party rights with respect to fixed assets of Rampur Texpro Unit till the next date of hearing.

3. The applicant being respondent No. 5 in the main petitions, the respondents in this application being the petitioners in the main petitions, they are referred as arrayed in the main petitions. The Companies Act, 1956, for the sake of brevity, is referred as "the Act". The cause of action, the reliefs and the respondents in these two cases being the same, I pass a common order, instead of separate orders.

4. This Bench already passed an order on May 17, 2010, in these applications by placing the operative portion of the common order in the attendance sheets of this Bench in both the applications with a view to bring the operative portion of the order to the notice of the parties before correction of the order with reasons. Since the applicant herein perhaps remaining in the belief that the order in the attendance sheet alone is the order passed in these applications, might have moved a section 10F appeal before the hon'ble High Court at Calcutta assailing it as non-reasoned order. In pursuance of the said appeal, the hon'ble High Court of Calcutta passed an order on June 24, 2010 clarifying that at the foot of the impugned order as vide separate order is not enough to get the understanding that the impugned order is the operative part of the order in detail. In view of the same, the impugned order was set aside as non-reasoned order. The honourable High Court further observed at the bottom of the first paragraph in page No. 4 of the order as below :

"However, while all these questions are being decided, the question whether such properties to remain idle or to be let out on such terms as or beneficial to the company must be adjudged in a business like approach, on proper principles. Such questions are to be dealt with by the Tribunal while deciding this application."

5. I pass this order in compliance with the directions set out in the appellate order after rehearing arguments on July 27, 2010 from either side counsel. I learnt from the order of the honourable High Court that the order in detail passed by this Bench on May 17, 2010 was not put to the scrutiny before the honourable High Court of Calcutta, thereby I pass this order believing the reasons assigned in the order dated May 17, 2010 are not set aside.

6. Since the order dated January 12, 2010 passed by the Principal Bench of Company Law Board at Delhi is sought for modification, I place it below :

"Order

Petition mentioned. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 company. None appears for respondent No. 5, the wholly owned subsidiary of respondent No. 1 company. After hearing counsel and on perusal of record the following interim reliefs are granted :

1. Respondent No. 5 is hereby restrained from alienating or creating any third party rights with respect to the fixed assets of the Rampur Texpro Division till the next date of hearing.

2. So far as the Shalimar Unit is concerned if the resolution regarding transfer of units of respondent No. 1 company to respondent No. 4, the wholly owned subsidiary of respondent No. 1 company is carried through in the board meeting it shall not be given effect to till the next date of hearing.

Issue notice to respondents Nos. 2 to 4 directing them to file their response to the petition. All the respondents shall file response within four weeks with a copy to the petitioner. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List this matter on March 31, 2010 at 10.30 a.m."

7. Respondent No. 5, a wholly owned subsidiary company of respondent No. 1 company to whom the assets of Rampur Texpro Unit we