SHALBY LIMITED Vs. DR. DIGAMBAR SURYA NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate for the Appellants and Mr. S.G. Desai, learned Senior Advocate for the Respondents.

(2.) The above Appeal takes exception to the Order dated 25.04.2016 passed by the Company Law Board. New Delhi Bench, New Delhi in CP no. 18 of 2015.

(3.) Briefly, it is the case of the Appellants that a Company Petition was filed in 2015 before the Company Law Board, Mumbai Bench by the present Respondent nos. 1 and 2 against the present Appellants and the Respondent no. 3 under Section 397-398 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging acts of oppression and mismanagement. In the course of the said proceedings before the Company Law Board at Mumbai and the Company Law Board at Delhi, various interim orders came to be passed including an Order dated 15.09.2015 which was passed upon an Agreement/Consensus between the parties, by which the present Respondent nos. 1 and 2 were to buy out the Appellant nos. 1 to 5 for a consideration of Rs. 19 Crores. In the course of the proceedings in the said CP no. 18 of 2015, various interlocutory Company applications were filed including a Company Application no. 122 of 2015 and 133 of 2015. The Respondent nos. 1 and 2/original Petitioners had also filed a Company Application no. 53 of 2015 seeking to amend Company Petition no. 18/2015, nos. 122 of 2015 and 133 of 2015. The said interlocutory Company Applications were heard by the Company Law Board, New Delhi and by Order dated 16.02016, the said Company Applications were kept for Orders. It is further contended by the Appellants that shockingly when the impugned Judgment came to be pronounced on 25.04.2016, the Company Law Board, New Delhi, finally disposed of the main Company Petition instead of pronouncing Orders on the two interlocutory applications bearing nos. 122 of 2015 and 133 of 2015 which in fact were heard and fixed for orders. Being aggrieved by the said Order/Judgment, the Appellants preferred the above Company Appeal essentially on the ground of the breach of the principles of natural justice.