ORAL JUDGMENT N. A. BRITTO, J. ;- An appeal against any decision or order of the Company Law Board, in terms of section IO-F of the Companies Act, 1956 lies before this Court. The short question for our consideration is whether such an appeal is to be entertained by a Single Judge or a Division Bench of this Court? 2. Some bare facts are required to be taken note of to answer the said on. 3. The appellants herein had preferred this appeal against the Order 26-9-2005 of the Company Law Board before the learned Single of this Court dealing with the Company matters. By Order dated 7-7-2 learned Single Judge, in the light of the Judgment of the Division Bench Court in Bais Surgical and Medical Institute Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Dhannjay Pande and others, 2005(2) Mh.L.J. 1145 = 2005(5) BCR 434 was pleased place this appeal before the Division Bench. When the matter came hearing before the Division Bench, the learned Counsel on behalf of parties were in complete agreement that the jurisdiction to entertain s appeal was that of the single Judge. The learned Counsel were also unanimous in their view that the learned Division Bench had failed to notice the co which the observations in para 13 of the Judgment in Stridewell Leat Ltd. and others vs. Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages (P.) Ltd., (1994) 1 came to be made in arriving at the conclusion that such an appeal w decided by the Division Bench. Likewise, the learned Counsel we unanimous in their view that the learned Division Bench had overlooked the provisions of Chapter I, Rule 2(I)(a)(v) of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960 which provide that the hearing of appeals from an or judicial or quasi judicial forum under local or special Act lie wit jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench before which appeal came to be placed and to which one of us (Britto, J.) was a party c the conclusion that the view taken by the learned Division Bench in the Bais Surgical and Medical Institute Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Dhananjay and others (supra) needed reconsideration and as a result the matt directed to be placed before the learned Chief Justice to enable him t the matter to a Full Bench and that is how the matter has been listed us. 4. 4. The learned Division Bench in Bais Surgical and Medical Institute Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Dhananjay Pande and others (supra) had referred to Stridewell Leather (P) Ltd. and others vs. Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Bevera Ltd. (supra) and observed that the main question that had arisen in that c not about the strength of the Bench but was about the territory (sic. Territorial) jurisdiction and that the Honble Apex Court had held that the High within whose territorial jurisdiction the registered Office of the Company situated was the Court which had jurisdiction and not the place within. jurisdiction the Company Law Board (CLB) or its Bench was located. same time, the learned Division Bench observed that the question as Bench strength was also addressed, discussed and the Lordships of the Court had pointed out even on this point, and, these observation contained in para 13 and the dictum was that the jurisdiction to hear and. the appeal under section 10-F of the Companies Act shall lie before Division Bench. 5. Since the decision of the learned Division Bench proceeds observations of the Apex Court in the case of Stridewell Leathers (P), Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages (P) Ltd. (supra) it would be advantag reproduce the said observations. "13. It may be mentioned that the original jurisdiction to try a p for winding up a Company continues to remain in the High Court concerned even though the original jurisdiction in respect of the petition under sections 397 and 398 is transferred to the Company Law Board. It is obvious that the appeal against an order made by the Company Judge of the High Court in a winding up petition continues to lie before a Division Bench in the same High Court. If the construction suggested on behalf of the respondents be correct then that High Court would have 00 jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the Company Law Boards order while appeal from the Company Judges order in a winding up petition to respect of the same Company Would lie there. This appears to be incongruous. A Possible anomaly of this kind would be prevented by taking the view which we have indicated." 6. This appears to be incongruous. A Possible anomaly of this kind would be prevented by taking the view which we have indicated." 6. In Stridewel Leathers (P) Ltd. vs. Bhakerpur Simbhaoli Beverage, (P) Ltd (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the question as to the meaning to be en to the expression "the High Court" in section 10-F of the Act and the Controversy was whether the High Court to which the appeal lies under section 10-F from an order of the Company Law Board is the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place in which the registered Office of the Company is situated or it is the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place in which the Company Law Board makes the order under appeal. After observing, inter alia, that the forum of appeal indicated in section 10-F is a definite forum of special indicated in section 10-f is definite forum determined by the provisions of the Act and not by the Regulations framed by the company Law Board under section 10-F(6) or the place of its silting under the locations, the Apex Court held that the expression "the High Court" in section of the Act meant the High Court having jurisdiction in relation 10 the place which the registered Office of the Company concerned is situated as indicated section 2(1l) read with section 10(1)(a) of the Act. The Apex Court then proceeded to bold that in that case the appeal under the order of the Company Board Would lie in the Madras High Court which had jurisdiction in relation place at which the registered Office of the Company concerned was led and not the Delhi High Court merely because the order was made by the Company Law Board at Delhi. 7. In our view, the observations made by the Apex Court in para 13 of Stridewell Leathers (P) Ltd. vs. Bhakerpur Simbhaoli Beverage, (P) Ltd. (supra) made in an entirely different Context. They were in the Context of appeals filed from the decision of the Single Judge to the Division Bench and not the Company Law Board to the Division Bench. In our view, the observations made by the Apex Court in para 13 of Stridewell Leathers (P) Ltd. vs. Bhakerpur Simbhaoli Beverage, (P) Ltd. (supra) made in an entirely different Context. They were in the Context of appeals filed from the decision of the Single Judge to the Division Bench and not the Company Law Board to the Division Bench. 10 our view no dictum cancelled out from the observations of the Apex Court in para 13 of the leaned Judgment in the case of Stridewell Leathers (P) Ltd. vs. Bhakerpur Simbhaoli ,rages (P) Ltd. (supra) to support a view that an appeal from a decision of Company Law Board with lie to the Division Bench of this Court. It is well d that a case is an authority for what it actually decides and not for what ally follows from it. The learned Division Bench also overlooked the ,ions of Chapter I, Rule 2(1)(a)(v) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Rules, 1960 which provide that it is a Single Judge which is required to aim and dispose of an appeal from order under local or special Acts not having the force of a decree. That being the legal position, we are considered view that an appeal from a decision or order of the Comp Board, filed under section 10-F of the Act, is required to be entertainment disposed of by a single Judge and not by the Division Bench. The question is answered accordingly. In the light of that, the appeal is now required to be returned to the Single Judge dealing with Company matters to dispose of the same in ac with law. Reference answered accordingly