- (1.) THE propriety of an order passed by the Company Law Board, New Delhi Bench (CLB) on 15th July, 2013 in C.P No. 01 of 2010 is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the appellants/petitioners. By the said order the appellants/petitioners were directed to argue the main case namely C.P No. 01 of 2010 first and thereafter to argue interlocutory applications being C.A No. 332 of 2011 and C.A No. 338 of 2011. Such direction was given by the Company Law Board (CLB) by taking into consideration the earlier two orders of this Hon'ble court passed in two different appeals. One of such orders was passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court on 26th September, 2011 in A.P.O No.267 of 2011 (Birla Corporation Ltd. Vs Birla Education Trust and Ors.) which was heard analogously with A.P.O No.268 of 2011 (Madhav Prasad Priyamvada Birla Apex Charitable Trust and Anr. ­Vs Birla Education Trust and Ors.). By the said order, an order passed by the Company Law Board (CLB) on 11th July, 2011 in an interlocutory application (C.A No.332 of 2011) filed by the petitioner, seeking interim injunction was set aside and the Company Law Board (CLB) was directed to rehear the petitioners' said interlocutory application being C.A No. 332 of 2011, along with the other interlocutory application being C.A No. 338 of 2011 filed by the respondent herein for rejection of the petitioners' said application for interim injunction, afresh for considering the petitioners' prayer for final relief as well as interim relief.
(2.) WHILE disposing of another appeal being A.P.O No. 154 of 2011 (Birla Education Trust and Ors. ­Vs Birla corporation Ltd. and Ors) the Learned single Judge of this court passed another order on 10th May, 2013 wherein though His Lordship, refused to interfere with the orders of the Company Law Board (CLB) which were impugned in the said appeal but directed the CLB to consider the dispute involved in the main case being C.P No. 01 of 2010 on its own merit. His Lordship observed that His Lordship was not directing the Company Law Board (CLB) to reexamine the prayer for interim order as the main petition had reached the final stage of hearing before the said forum. The Company Law Board (CLB) after considering those two orders passed by this court in the aforesaid appeals, ultimately formed an opinion that the effect of earlier order which was passed by this court on 26th September, 2011 in A.P.O No.267 of 2011 and A.P.O No.268 of 2011 directing the CLB to reconsider these two interlocutory applications relating to interim injunction matter lost its force in view of the subsequent order passed by this court on 10th May, 2013 in subsequent appeal being A.P.O No.154 of 2011 whereby the main case was directed to be considered on merit and thus by following the subsequent directions passed by this court in the said appeal, the Company Law Board (CLB) passed an order on 15th July 2013, by directing the petitioner to argue the main case first and thereafter to argue the aforesaid interlocutory applications. The legality of the said order is under challenge in this appeal.
(3.) LET me now consider as to how far the Company Law Board (CLB) was justified in passing the aforesaid direction in the facts of the instant case. The appellants/petitioners herein filed a company petition being C.P No.01 of 2010 claiming various reliefs therein by alleging oppression and mismanagement of the company concerned viz., Birla Corporation Ltd. Amongst various allegations on which the said company petition was found, siphoning of the fund of the said company by way of donation through Madhav Prasad Priyamvada Birla Apex Charitable Trust, is the major allegation against the respondents herein. Though initially no relief by way of permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from siphoning the fund of the said company by way of donation through Madhav Prasad Priyamvada Birla Apex Charitable Trust was prayed for in the main company petition, but subsequently such relief was introduced in the main petition by way of amendment. Identical relief by way of interim injunction during the pendency of the main proceeding being C.P No.01 of 2010 was also prayed for by the petitioner in their interlocutory application which was registered as C.A No. 332 of 2011. The case made out by the appellants/petitioners in their main company petition were mostly reiterated by them in their interlocutory application. The defence which the respondents made out against the petitioners' said interlocutory application is almost identical to the defence which they made out in the objection to the main petition being C.P No. 01 of 2011. Considering the fact that a common issue was involved in both the main case and the interlocutory proceedings, the Company Law Board might have thought that for speedy and expeditious disposal of the main proceeding, both the main case and the interlocutory applications should be heard analogously. In fact, parties also thought that justice would be subserved if the main proceeding being C.P No. 01 of 2010 was heard along with the aforesaid two interlocutory applications. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the company petition No. 01 of 2010 was listed along with those two interlocutory applications for hearing on 19th, 20th & 21st March, 2012. In fact, on 2nd May, 2013 the petitioners' interlocutory application being C.A No.332 of 2011 was taken up for hearing and the petitioners' counsel was heardinpart on that date. However, subsequently, the said partheard matter was released from the Bench on the personal ground of the Judicial member of the Company Law Board. Thereafter when the petitioners' said interlocutory application was placed for hearing before the other Judicial Member of the Company Law Board on 15.07.2013 the said Bench of the Company Law Board, decided to change the order of hearing of the interlocutory applications and main company petition by taking note of the direction passed by this High Court on 10th May, 2013 in A.P.O No. 154 of 2011 and directed the petitioner to argue the main case first and thereafter the interlocutory applications.;