Viney Mittal, J. - (1.) The petitioners have approached this Court making a grievance that although they had filed two separate applications (Annexures P.13 and P.14) before the Company Law Board challenging the very maintainability of the company petition filed by the respondents before the Company Law Board but the Board has chosen not to decide the aforesaid application and vide order dated May 26, 2006 (Annexure P.15) has directed that the case be listed for final disposal on July 6, 2006.
(2.) Shri Ashok Aggarwal, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that the question raised in the aforesaid application (Annexure P.13) had been heard in part but no decision was rendered by the Company Law Board and rather than deciding the aforesaid two applications, the Company Law Board has chosen to take up the main petition itself for final disposal.
(3.) We have duly appreciated the aforesaid arguments of the learned senior counsel. However, we find that at no point of time any application has been filed by the petitioners before the Company Law Board that the aforesaid two applications be decided at the first instance without dealing with the controversy raised in the main petition. In these circumstances, we do not find any justification to issue any directions to the Company Law Board, at this juncture. Consequently, we dispose of the present petition with a liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate application before the Company Law Board for deciding the aforesaid application at the first instance without dealing with the main petition filed by the private respondents. In case any order adverse to the petitioner is passed in the aforesaid application, the petitioner would be still at liberty to approach this Court yet again.;