- (1.) THE Court : No question of law is involved in any of these three attempts under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 to assail interim orders passed by the Company Law Board. For a start, the regular visits to High Courts from interim orders passed by the Company Law Board should be discouraged since Section 10F does not contemplate such a situation. It has now become fashionable for the relevant High Court to be treated as the regular appellate forum or the revisional forum from even orders of adjournment passed by the Company Law Board.
(2.) THERE are two petitions before the Company Law Board, inter alia, under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Company Law Board took on record a settlement without notice to some of the persons who were interested. On a challenge by such persons, the relevant order was annulled by the previous appellate order of August 28, 2012 and the Company Law Board requested to revisit the matter. In course of the Company Law Board revisiting the matter, two orders have been passed which have been sought to be challenged in these would be- appeals. The petitioner in the first case, Sajjan Agarwala, seeks to question a finding or an observation in one of the orders which, according to such would-be appellant, is capable of being misread in its interpretation. Surely, the distorted interpretation of any order by a party or a passer-by cannot elevate a banal matter to a question of law that can be carried under Section 10F of the Act.
(3.) THE two other petitions are equally unmeritorious, kite-flying exercises that may enure well for the profession but are unworthy of any protracted consideration.;