MR. DILIP TIMBLO Vs. AUDUTH TIMBLO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE , by consent, made returnable forthwith. This matter had come up for hearing on several occasions before the Court.

(2.) THE applicant had pointed out that, prima facie, the applicant had made out a good case to show that the respondent had stated before the Company Law Board that there was no extraction of ore from MLs 2296 and 2141. The applicant has placed on record some documents which show that in fact there was substantial extraction of ore from these mining leases to the tune of almost 60 Lakh Metric Tons. This is an issue, which the Company Law Board would have to decide when it holds a preliminary enquiry as to whether a complaint has to be made to the Magistrate under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. and it would not be appropriate for this Court to make any comment on this issue. Since the application is pending before the Company Law Board since 2009, the Company Law Board may expeditiously hold the enquiry as far as possible within a period of six months from the date of receipt of writ from this Court. With this direction, the application is disposed of.