Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 556 (GUJ)

Moonshine Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajesh Patil

2011-07-22

JAYANT PATEL, R.M.CHHAYA

body2011
JUDGMENT : Jayant Patel, J. The present appeal is directed against the administrative order dated July 19, 2011, passed by the Chairman, Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi in C.A. No. 343 of 2011 whereby the learned Chairman of the Company Law Board has ordered that the matter be heard by the Principal Bench. 2. Heard Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned senior counsel with Ms. A.B. Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 on caveat. 3. The grievance on the part of the appellant appears to be that as per the notification dated March 17, 2008, the Principal Bench may consist of more than one Member, coupled with the power of the Chairman to transfer any matter pending before the Regional Benches to the Principal Bench either at the joint request of all the parties or for other reasons recorded in writing. It has been further submitted on behalf of the appellant that vide order dated January 28, 2010, passed by the Chairman of the Company Law Board it has been observed that all matters pending before the Principal Bench of the Company Law Board before March 31, 2008, will be dealt with by various Benches, viz., New Delhi Bench, Chennai Bench, Kolkata Bench and Mumbai Bench. Clause (c)(1) of the said order provides that the Principal Bench shall consist of the Chairman. It was further submitted that when this court vide order dated April 26, 2010, passed in Special Civil Application No. 19635 of 2006 had directed the matter to be heard before the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi, it was required to be heard by the Principal Bench, New Delhi and in the submission of learned counsel of the appellant Principal Bench, New Delhi must consist of the Chairman and could not be only of the member and, therefore, the order calls for interference. 4. We may record that earlier the very appellant had preferred O. J. Appeal No. 41 of 2011 contending more or less similar issue on the same ground. However, after arguments, the appellant had withdrawn the said appeal with a view to approach before the Chairman of the Company Law Board. The said order dated July 5, 2011, in O. J. Appeal No. 41 of 2011 reads as under : "Heard Mr. Kamal Trivedi, the learned Advocate General appearing with Mr. However, after arguments, the appellant had withdrawn the said appeal with a view to approach before the Chairman of the Company Law Board. The said order dated July 5, 2011, in O. J. Appeal No. 41 of 2011 reads as under : "Heard Mr. Kamal Trivedi, the learned Advocate General appearing with Mr. Gandhi for the appellant and Mr. S. N. Soparkar, learned senior counsel with Mr. Vakil for respondent No. 1. After arguments, Mr. Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw the present appeal with a view to move the Chairman of the Company Law Board for hearing of the matter by the Company Law Board, Principal Bench at New Delhi since as per the direction of this court, the matter was to be heard by the Principal Bench. Whereas, Mr. Soparkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that the matter in fact is being heard by the Principal Bench. Permission granted. Disposed of as withdrawn." 5. It appears that thereafter an application has been moved to the Chairman of the Company Law Board to decide on the point as to whether the Principal Bench, New Delhi is hearing the matter or the matter should be heard by the other bench with the different composition of the members. Thereafter, the Chairman of the Company Law Board has passed the impugned order. 6. In our view, as such, it is an exercise of administrative power by the Chairman of the Company Law Board, who is the administrative head of all the Benches of the Company Law Board. The same is coupled with the express powers vested in the Chairman vide notification dated March 17, 2008, wherein it has been provided that it shall be lawful for the Chairman to transfer any matters pending before the Regional Benches to the Principal Bench. The constitution of the Bench and assignment of the business to the Bench is essentially the domain of the Chairman of the Bench. No litigant can assert as of right for hearing of the matter by one Bench or another. The constitution of the Bench and assignment of the business to the Bench is essentially the domain of the Chairman of the Bench. No litigant can assert as of right for hearing of the matter by one Bench or another. The interpretation as sought to be canvassed of the order dated April 26, 2010, passed in Special Civil Application No. 19635 of 2006 for hearing of the matter by the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi cannot be read so as to curtail the power of the Chairman of the Company Law Board as sought to be canvassed. Two aspects are relevant to be recorded - one is that the present matter pertains to the period prior to 2008, viz., main Company Petition No. 90 of 2005, which is of 2005 and the other aspect is that the Chairman of the Company Law Board himself has found by the impugned order that the matter is in fact being heard by the Principal Bench and he has also observed that the matters filed before the Principal Bench before March 31, 2008 and pending in the New Delhi Bench could be heard by him or Smt. Vimla Yadav, Member (Technical). Under these circumstances, when the Chairman of the Company Law Board has found it for issuance of no direction in the matter, we find that no interference is called for on the ground as sought to be canvassed. 7. Before parting we may record that it is not the choice of any litigant to have his matter adjudicated or heard by the Member or the Bench of his choice or subject to his convenience. If such rights are given to any litigant it would affect the sanctity of hearing before a quasi-judicial authority and in the present case rather a statutory body. All such powers vest with the Chairman, who is the administrative head of the Company Law Board. No party or litigant can legitimately make a grievance against the same, unless a strong case of bias, that too satisfactorily demonstrated before the Chairman of the Company Law Board. 8. In view of the above, the appeal is thoroughly misconceived and hence, the same is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000 (rupees twenty five thousand) and the same shall be deposited by the appellant with Company Law Board within a period of 1 (one) month from today. 8. In view of the above, the appeal is thoroughly misconceived and hence, the same is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000 (rupees twenty five thousand) and the same shall be deposited by the appellant with Company Law Board within a period of 1 (one) month from today. It will be open for the Company Law Board to appropriate the amount of cost as per the final order which may be passed in the proceedings of the main Company Petition No. 90 of 2005. Order in O. J. Civil Application No. 356 of 2011 9. In view of the order passed in the main appeal, civil application would not survive.