(1.) THE relevant facts briefly are that the respondents filed Company Petition No. 62 of 2003 before the Company Law Board ('CLB'), Principal Bench, New Delhi under Sections 397, 398, 403 and 404 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') alleging mismanagement and oppression of the minority shareholders by the majority shareholder, appellant No. 1, in the affairs of the company Utkal Motors (P.) Ltd., appellant No. 5 in the said Company petition No. 62 of 2003 the respondents also prayed for some interim reliefs in paragraph 51 of the petition. On 2 -7 -2003, the CLB passed an ex parte order granting interim reliefs as prayed in paragraphs 51(i), (ii) and (v) of the company petition. The appellants herein filed their reply before the CLB on 31 -7 -2003 and made a prayer before the CLB to recall/ vacate the ad interim ex pane order dated 2 -7 -2003. Thereafter, the CLB passed orders on 11 -9 -2003 and 1 -10 -2003. Aggrieved by the said orders passed by the CLB on 11 -9 -2003 and 1 -10 -2003, the appellants filed COAPL No. 2 of 2003 under Section 10F of the Act. Along with the said appeal, the appellants also filed Misc. Case No. 3 of 2003 praying for stay of the impugned orders dated 11 -9 -2003 and MO -2003 passed by the CLB till disposal of the appeal. On 3 -11 -2003, the Court after holding that question of law arises for determination in this case admitted the appeal and directed as an interim measure that the operation of the impugned orders dated 11 -9 -2003 and 1 -10 -2003 of the CLB shall remain stayed until further orders. Thereafter, Misc. Case No. 5 of 2003 was filed by the appellants herein with a prayer to the Court to pass an appropriate order staying the ad interim order of stay dated 2 -7 -2003 of the CLB, After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the Court passed orders on 14 -5 -2004 in the said Misc. Case No. 5 of 2003. Against the said orders passed by this Court on 14 -5 -2004 in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2003, the respondents filed Special Leave Petition No. 10533 of 2004 before the Supreme Court but on 28 -5 -2004, the Supreme Court dismissed the said Special Leave Petition. Thereafter the present Misc. Case Nos. 8 and 10 of 2004 have been filed by the respondents in COAPL No. 2 of 2003.
(2.) IN Misc. Case No. 8 of 2004, the respondents have prayed for modification of the aforesaid order dated 14 -5 -2004 so as to restore the interim orders passed by the CLB in terms of paragraphs 51 (ii) and (v) of the Company Petition No. 62 of 2003 of the respondents before the CLB.
(3.) MR . S.S. Das, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm's case (supra) cited by Mr. Mohanty is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He sought to explain that in that case the Supreme Court held that the exercise of power of review by, the High Court after dismissal of the special leave petitions against the self same order is improper. He pointed out that in that case an order of eviction was under challenge before the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition Nos. 4039 and 4040 of 1987 and the same were dismissed on 16 -9 -1987 and after dismissal of the special leave petitions, the respondents in the said case filed review petition before the High Court seeking review of the order against which special leave petitions were dismissed. Mr. Das submitted that it will, thus, be clear that in that case the respondents approached the High Court against the final order of eviction which ultimately went to the Supreme Court whereas, in the instant case, the special leave petition was against the interim order passed on 14 -5 -2004 and the said special leave petition was dismissed and the respondents have now applied for modification of the said order dated 14 -5 -2004. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhaskaran v. Sreedharan in support of his submission that mere dismissal of a Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court does not amount to confirmation of the judgment of the High Court against which the special leave petition was filed.