- (1.) THE principal question of law that has been urged is as to whether on an application for amendment of the petition in proceedings under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Company Law Board may permit all the amendments to be incorporated without assigning any reason therefor. The order impugned in the company's appeal and in the appeal by the seventh respondent before the Company Law-Board needs to be set out in its entirety : "heard the Parties on CA Nos. 131 and 132/07. Considering the contents of the amendment application and the legal submissions as well plethora of case laws relied upon by the parties as well as Regulation 46 of the CLB, to consider real controversies between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of litigation ! allow the petitioner to amend cp No. 46/2006. Petitioner to file amended petition within a week's time. Respondents to file reply to the amended petition within four weeks thereafter. 'adjourned to 8. 10,2007 at 2:30 p. m. and 9. 10. 2007 and 10. 10. 2007 at 2:30 p. m. ,"
(2.) IT appears on a plain reading of such order that the Company Law board did, as it was obliged to, consider the contents of the amendment application. The order also records that legal submissions were made and that such legal submissions were also considered. The order also informs that a "plethora of case laws" was relied upon by the parties. This much, was recorded as to what transpired 'before the Company Law Board. As to the reasons for the order, Regulation 46 of the Company Law Board regulations is cited and the amendment application has been allowed "to consider real controversies between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. "
(3.) WITHOUT meaning any disrespect, that is the conclusion and not the reason. Reasons would be the links that would lead to such conclusion for such is a conclusion which is necessary for an amendment application to be allowed.;