AI CHAMPDANY INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. BLANCATEX A G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two appeals and two cross appeals were heard by me. They were against the order dated 17th May, 2010 passed by the Company Law Board, Kolkata Bench. The order was passed in each of the two applications for disclosure of information and documents made by the applicants Aldgate International SA and Blancatex AG and others before the Board in aid of the proceedings filed by them under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. In fact there was one main proceedings before the Company Law Board, filed by each of the above companies, being C.P. 1 (Kol) 2010 C.P.(2) (Kol) 2010 respectively. Two appeals were filed by these applicants and two by the first respondent company in these proceedings, A.I. Champdany Industries Limited, which were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. At this stage I may note that this disclosure of documents was stated by the applicants to be necessary inter alia for filing their reply to the main company proceedings.

(2.) There is some contention between the parties regarding the order dated 17th May, 2010. It appears that an order without reason and containing only the ordering part was furnished to the parties immediately after passing of the said order. Thereafter, a detailed order described as a "common order" was supplied to them by the Company Law Board on 10th June, 2010. Now, in the short unreasoned order which was supplied there was a remark at the foot "vide separate order". There was no provision, that the reasons for such order would be supplied later or that it was only the operative part of the order. The order which was supplied to the parties much later also did not say that the order constituted the detailed reasons in support of the said unreasoned order. This order was just described as a "common order". It is the allegation of Champdany that this order was subsequently made and circulated by the Company Law Board, in anticipation of the appeal to be filed. This is indeed a very serious allegation and is not substantiated by any grounds. In any event the learned counsel for that company implored me to treat the unreasoned order as the order under appeal and to ignore the detailed order described as a "common order"

(3.) By the said order dated 17th May, 2010 the Company Law Board directed Champdany to furnish copies of only the following documents and no others: