MOONSHINE FILMS P. LTD. Vs. RAJESH PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the administrative order dated July 19, 2011, passed by the Chairman, Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi in C.A. No. 343 of 2011 whereby the learned Chairman of the Company Law Board has ordered that the matter be heard by the Principal Bench. Heard Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned senior counsel with Ms. A.B. Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 on caveat.

(2.) The grievance on the part of the appellant appears to be that as per the notification dated March 17, 2008, the Principal Bench may consist of more than one Member, coupled with the power of the Chairman to transfer any matter pending before the Regional Benches to the Principal Bench either at the joint request of all the parties or for other reasons recorded in writing. It has been further submitted on behalf of the appellant that vide order dated January 28, 2010, passed by the Chairman of the Company Law Board it has been observed that all matters pending before the Principal Bench of the Company Law Board before March 31, 2008, will be dealt with by various Benches, viz., New Delhi Bench, Chennai Bench, Kolkata Bench and Mumbai Bench. Clause (c)(1) of the said order provides that the Principal Bench shall consist of the Chairman. It was further submitted that when this court vide order dated April 26, 2010, passed in Special Civil Application No. 19635 of 2006 had directed the matter to be heard before the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi, it was required to be heard by the Principal Bench, New Delhi and in the submission of learned counsel of the appellant Principal Bench, New Delhi must consist of the Chairman and could not be only of the member and, therefore, the order calls for interference.

(3.) We may record that earlier the very appellant had preferred O.J. Appeal No. 41 of 2011 contending more or less similar issue on the same ground. However, after arguments, the appellant had withdrawn the said appeal with a view to approach before the Chairman of the Company Law Board. The said order dated July 5, 2011, in O.J. Appeal No. 41 of 2011 reads as under: