1. This is an application filed by the respondents 1 to 3 in the main petition under Regulation 4(4) read with Regulations 44, 47 and 48 of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991 and section 10 (E) (5) and (6) of the Companies Act, 1956 with a prayer that the Presiding Officer presently hearing the main petition may rescue himself, for the reasons set out therein.

2. Shri Jogy Scaria, learned Counsel, representing the applicants, while claiming the relief, submitted that the present application is different from the earlier application (C.A. No. 30 of 2009), seeking directions for hearing the matter by a fresh mind and therefore, the prayer of the applicants may be considered, so as to take suitable steps for examination of witnesses, establishing their case.

3. Shri T.K. Seshadri, learned Senior Counsel, while opposing the prayer of the applicants contended that the Company Application is not maintainable in the light of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991. Regulation 2(1)(m) defines "Member as a Member of the Board and includes the Chairman and Vice Chairman, while "Chairman" in terms of Regulation 2 (1)(i) means Chairman of the Board. Therefore, Chairman does not include Vice Chairman. Regulation 3 deals with composition of Benches of the Board and Regulation 4 specifies the power of the Chairman to specify the matters, which may be dealt with by a Bench. The proviso to Regulation 4 empowers the Chairman to transfer any matter pending before the Benches, as specified therein. In view of this explicit provision, the Bench cannot exercise the inherent power under Regulation 44 to consider the present application, as claimed by the applicants. It is obligatory on the part of the applicants to move before the Chairman of the Board for appropriate directions. Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 dealing with general power of transfer, does not permit any lower Court to transfer its proceedings to any other Court without appropriate directions of either District Court of High Court. The applicants have accused the present Bench and therefore, this application cannot be heard by the very same Bench. The Supreme Court has already given directions to dispose the matter within four months, whereas the applicants are protracting the matter, contrary to the order of the Supreme Court. In the absence of any stay against conduct of the present proceedings, the Bench may dispose the matter, in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court. In view of this, the application is liable to be dismissed.

4. Shri Jogy Scaria, learned Counsel, in his rejoinder submitted that the prayer of the applicants is that the Presiding Officer may rescue from the matter and nothing else, and therefore, the question of dismissing the Company Application does not arise.

5. When the present application came to be mentioned on 29.06.2009, the Bench made clear that the inter-se disputes between the parties should not be directed against the Bench, however for no valid reasons, leaving no option but to disassociate with the matter and further pointed out that the address of learned counsel representing the applicants, not being on the file was sought to be ascertained, to enable the Bench to serve a copy of the order dated 24.06.2009 made in C.A. No. 30 of 2009.

6. In the light of the controversies raised by the applicants and considering the submissions made on behalf of the respondents, 1 am inclined to recuse from the cases, namely, C.P. No. 30 of 2003 and C.P. No. 33 of 2003, thereby enabling the applicants to pursue the proceedings, in compliance with the Supreme Court directions. Ordered accordingly.