Calcutta High Court
Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Ltd vs Bijay Kumar Kajaria & Ors on 21 January, 2011
Author: I.P. Mukerji
Bench: I.P. Mukerji
APOT No.33 of 2011
ACO No.5 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
In the matter of:
Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Ltd.
Versus
Bijay Kumar Kajaria & Ors.
Before:
The Hon'ble Justice
I.P. Mukerji
Date: 21.01.2011
Appearance:
Mr. Abhrajit Mitra Adv.,
Mr. Anirban Roy Adv.,
. . . for the petitioner.
Mr. Jishnu Saha Adv., Mr. D. Basak Adv.,
Mr. S. Agarawal Adv., Mr. A. Basu Adv.,
. . . for the respondents.
The Court: This is an appeal against the order of the Company Law Board dated 9th April, 2010.
Mr. Jishnu Saha takes the points of limitation. Mr. Abhrajit Mitra learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the order was not communicated. Therefore, the appeal is within time. Without going into any controversy I admit this appeal by condoning delay, if any.
The point is very short. The appellant is aggrieved by the order when it says that the applications mentioned therein "will be heard together". It is submitted on their behalf that there is no case 2 whatsoever for consolidated or analogous hearing of the appeals. Such arguments were made before the Board but not considered.
Mr. Saha for the respondents submits that all arguments were considered by the Board. They were not discussed in the order.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, by their consent I treat this appeal on the day's list and dispose it of by an order directing the Company Law Board to hear the applications one by one after listing them together. All procedural matters i.e. whether there will be common evidence, arguments, or judgement will be left to the Company Law Board. The parties may express their views in this behalf, which may be considered by it in accordance with law.
This Court requests the Company Law Board to dispose of the main proceedings within a period of six months from date.
The appeal is thus disposed of. The impugned order of the Company Law Board is modified accordingly.
As no affidavit has been used by the respondents the allegations contained in the petition are not deemed to be admitted.
All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.
(I.P. Mukerji, J.) SP/ 3