SANJAY PALIWAL Vs. AJAY PALIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These applications are filed by the applicants-respondents contending, inter alia, that the order dated 7th September, 2007 which was passed in their absence should be recalled in view of the fact that an opportunity is granted by the said order to the appellant to file an appeal before this Court in the event of their being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Single Judge. It was also contended that an order passed by the Ld. Single Judge in appellate company jurisdiction under Section 10-F of the Companies Act, 1956 cannot be made subject matter of appeal in a LPA as a second appeal is barred under the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) We have appreciated the said contention. In our considered opinion the order passed on 7th September, 2007 is an innocuous order. Since it was disclosed from the impugned order that the interim application was being taken up for consideration by the learned Single Judge, we had observed that all submissions raised in the appeal could be raised before the learned Company Judge. We have not interfered with the order of the learned Company Judge.

(3.) Towards the end of the order we have said that if the appellant is still aggrieved after an order is passed by the learned Company Judge, it shall be open to the appellant to move to the Division Bench after 26.9.2007, when the said application was listed for consideration before the learned Company Judge. By the said order we have not decided or held that an appeal before the Division Bench is maintainable. Since a question with regard to the maintainability of the appeal is being raised, such plea can also be raised before us if and when appellants file an appeal, when we will necessarily and definitely consider the question of maintainability. In terms of the aforesaid order the applications stand disposed of.