Devi Prasad Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi on behalf of the Appellant and Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the Respondents.
(2.) THE present appeal has been preferred under Section 10F of Companies Act, 1956. While assailing the impugned orders, the learned Counsel for the Appellant Sri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi relied upon the cases reported in : 1994 (1) SCC 34 Stridewell Leathers (P). v. Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages (P) Ltd. : 128 Comp cas 273 Bom: 2005 (5) Bom CR 434: Dr. Bais Surgical and Medical v. Dhananjay Pandey and Ors. Central Park Farm and Developers Private Limited and Ors. v. Mohamed Ataulia and Ors. Company Appeal No. 3 of 2008 c/w Company Appeal No. 4 of 2008 decided on 31.8.2010. [Karnataka HC]; Smt. S. Kunjithamala v. HVAC Systems Pvt. Limited; COMPA No. 2 of 2010 decided on 3.2.2010 [Karnataka HC]; Smt. S. Kunjithamala v. HVAC Systems Pvt. Limited; COMPA No. 1 of 2010 decided on 3.2.2010. [Karnataka HC]; Manohar Rajaram Chhabaria v. Union of India and Ors. : (2000) 3 CALLT 434 HC: 2002 110 Comp Cas 162 Cal, decided on 18.2.2000. [Kolkata HC]; Company Appeal No. 14 of 2006 V.S. Krishnan and Ors. v. West Fort Hitech Hospital Limited decided on 14.11.2006 delivered by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V.S. Krishnan and Ors.. v. West fort Hi -Tech Hospital Limited : (2008) 3 SCC 363. [Kerala HC] and Kumar Rajendra Tekriwal v. Unique Construction Pvt. Ltd. O.J.A./245/2007/1/28 judgment (Gujarat HC).
(3.) SRI Asit Kumar Chaturvedi submitted that the Board has passed the impugned orders without recording three necessary conditions i.e., prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss or injury and without discussing the controversy involved before it.;