JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Goyal, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants. Also heard Mr. Sandeep Jindal, learned Counsel representing the Respondent Nos. 1 to 25 (Petitioners before the Company Law Board). 2. This appeal is presented under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), whereby the Appellants challenge the order dated 27.7.2005 (Annexure 3) and the order dated 24.8.2005 (Annexure 4), passed by the Company Law Board (hereinafter referred to as the CLB). Principal Bench at New Delhi in Company Petition No. 45/03 initiated by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 25. The Respondents as Petitioner Nos. 1 to 25 had approached the CLB under the provisions of Sections 397, 398 and 402 of the Act alleging oppression and mismanagement and seeking appropriate directions of the CLB on their said petition. 3. The Appellants herein as Respondents before the CLB, filed objections on the maintainability of the proceeding before the CLB by contending, inter alia, that the application of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 25 does not fulfill the pre-conditions laid down under Section 399 of the Act and accordingly the CLB ought not to entertain the application filed by the Respondents/Petitioners. 4. It is argued by Mr. Dutta, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants that the Respondents/Petitioners had not actually invested in the shares of the Appellant Company and were not holding the requisite percentage of shares as prescribed under Section 399 of the Act and under such circumstances, the CLB ought not to have entertained the application filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 25 or, in any case, at least decision on the maintainability of the application of the Respondents in the light of the provisions of Section 399 of the Act ought to have been taken by the CLB. 5. It is also contended by Mr. Dutta that the issue of locus standi of the Respondents/ Petitioners to maintain the proceeding before the CLB on behalf of 25 Companies were also challenged and since this too was a matter on which the CLB needed to be satisfied before proceeding any further in the matter, the orders passed by the CLB particularly on 24.8.2005, directing production of income tax returns by the Appellants (Respondents before the CLB) was not warranted in law. 6. 6. Appearing for the Respondents (Petitioners before the CLB) Mr. Sandeep Jindal, learned Counsel argues that the present appeal under Section 10F of the Act is not maintainable in as much as no decision has yet been taken by the CLB on the preliminary objections raised by the Appellants before the CLB and since there is no decision, none can be said to be aggrieved and accordingly, the present appeal under Section 10F of the Act is not maintainable. 7. The learned Counsel further submits that issue of jurisdiction as well as locus standi of the Petitioners in the proceeding before the CLB is not a pure question of law but is a mixed question of law and facts. It is also submitted that by virtue of Rule 6 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable in proceeding before the CLB. The learned Counsel refers to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to submit that in the proceeding before the CLB in light of the Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is really for the CLB to decide, even on an objection on a pure issue of law, whether to decide the objection as a preliminary issue or as a regular issue and accordingly he contends that it would not be appropriate for an appellate Court, to give direction on the manner in which, the CLB should proceed in the matter. Mr. Jindal submits that there was no obligation on the part of the CLB to decide as a preliminary issue, the objection raised by the Appellants, having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ramesh B. Desai vs. Bipin Vadilal Mehta reported in (2006) 5 SCC 638 , where the Court held that: There can be no departure from the principle that the Code confers no jurisdiction upon the Court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and fact as a preliminary issue and where the decision on issue of law depends upon decision of fact, it cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. Jindal further submits that in so far as the present stage of the proceeding before the CLB, on the last effective hearing date before the CLB, the submissions from the side of the 25 Petitioners on the preliminary objection on the maintainability of the proceeding raised by the present Appellants and also on the merit of the case, were heard and the case was fixed on 14.7.2009 for arguments by the Appellants/Respondents before the CLB. But on 14.7.2009 the matter was adjourned and it is submitted by Mr. Jindal that the next date fixed before the CLB is 24.8.2009, when it is expected that the Appellants would make their arguments. 9. From the submissions made by Mr. Jindal, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents herein it appears that the CLB currently is in seisin on the objections raised by the Appellants before the CLB and it is obvious that no preliminary or final decision has yet been taken on the said objections of the Appellants, by the CLB as yet. 10. In a proceeding under Section 397 and 398 of the Act, the CLB would be the final Authority to decide on the right of the Respondents/Petitioners to apply in the context of Section 399 of the Act, where the extent of shares held by the Petitioners in the Appellant Company (M/s. Shebawheels Pvt. Ltd.) is a materials consideration, which essentially is a question of fact where the CLB obviously is the final arbiter. It is seen that no decision has yet been taken by the CLB on any of the objections raised by the Appellants, these objections are mixed questions of facts and law and accordingly I am of the considered opinion that it may not be appropriate for the appellate Court to entertain the present Appeal at this stage, where the CLB is yet to decide one way or other, on the objections of the Appellants. 11. Since the CLB is in seisin of the matter with regard to the objections raised by the Appellants and the next date is fixed on 24.8.2009 for hearing the Appellants. I consider it appropriate to close this Appeal with the expectation that the CLB would take an appropriate decision on the issue of jurisdiction and also the locus standi of the Respondents/Petitioners, in an appropriate manner. It is ordered accordingly.