SADBHAV ENGINEERING LIMITED Vs. MONTECARLO LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter was heard at the residence yesterday, the 31 st August 2013 and order was passed. Soon thereafter, Mr.Singhi, learned advocate approached one of us (Ravi R. Tripathi, J. at the residence) with a prayer that before the order is communicated he may be given an opportunity of hearing. The request was granted subject to the learned advocate getting required permission from the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Permission was granted by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and pursuant to that hearing of the matter was kept at 09.00 PM yesterday, the 31 st August 2013. The matter was heard.

(2.) AT the time of hearing one of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant was that there is no written application for reconsidering the order passed by this Court (dated 31.08.2013). Therefore, the matter was kept today at 04.00 PM so as to enable the respondents to file an application and the same is replied by the appellant.

(3.) TAKING into consideration the contents of the Civil Application No.495 of 2013 and the reply thereto, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Company Law Board had made all possible efforts to hear Company Application No.178 of 2013, but hearing could not be concluded. The Court restrains itself from going into the reasons for 'hearing having not concluded'. Now therefore, the question which remains for consideration is whether the Company Law Board should have sufficient time to hear Company Application No.178 of 2013, wherein the question of applicability of section 8 of the Act is going to be decided as directed by this Court by its order dated 22.08.2013 and thereafter to consider the question of grant of interim relief. The urgency is on account of Board Meeting which is scheduled on 02.09.2013, viz. tomorrow. Hearing of C.A. No.226 is also fixed tomorrow. The learned senior advocate Mr.Soparkar submitted that C.A. No.226 is filed praying for quashing of 'the Notice convening the said Board Meeting'. After the matter is argued for some time the Court has come to a conclusion that the real bone of contention between the parties, for the present, is about the convening of meeting of the Board on 02.09.2013.