JUDGMENT: 1. Feeling aggrieved by the failure of the Company Law Board, Chennai Bench, to issue a prior notice and hear them on the quantum of compounding fees required to be paid by them under Section 621A of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the Act), the appellants filed the present appeal. 2. Upon noticing that the Company Law Board, Chennai Bench, has not been following Regulation 29 of the Company Law Board Regulations 1991 (for short the Regulations), this Court has impleaded the Company Law Board, Chennai Bench, and directed the presence of the Bench Officer by order dated 18.06.2014. In compliance with the direction of this Court, the Bench Officer was personally present on 30.06.2014 and he has conceded that no order fixing the fine under Section 162(1) of the Act was passed. 3. At the hearing, this Court has expressed its view that the function of the Company Law Board, while acting under Section 162(1) of the Act, is quasi judicial in nature and that the same can be said to have been properly discharged only if it passes an order in writing as mandated by Regulation 29 of the Regulations. 4. Mr. P. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, the then Assistant Solicitor General, while candidly conceding that the Company Law Board has not been following this procedure in applications filed for compounding the offences and that instead the quantum of compounding fee was being intimated to the applicants in an informal manner without there being an order in writing, has requested for an adjournment for filing an affidavit undertaking to follow the above-mentioned procedure. 5. Accordingly, Mr. C.S. Govindarajan, the Bench Officer of the Company Law Board, Chennai Bench, has filed an affidavit sworn to on 25.07.2014, wherein he has stated that on 30.06.2014, the office of the Company Law Board has issued hearing notices to the applicants, that the case which was posted for hearing on 25.07.2014 was adjourned at the instance of the counsel for the applicants who filed his vakalath and also the affidavit and that, therefore, further hearing of the case is slated for 13.08.2014. He has also stated that the Company Law Board is strictly following the procedure contemplated under the Regulations and that it undertakes to follow this procedure in all the cases by issuing notices of hearing and conducting hearing before fixing the compounding fees and passing orders thereon. 6. He has also stated that the Company Law Board is strictly following the procedure contemplated under the Regulations and that it undertakes to follow this procedure in all the cases by issuing notices of hearing and conducting hearing before fixing the compounding fees and passing orders thereon. 6. Having regard to the affidavit of the Bench Officer as referred to above, the company appeal is closed. As the application for compounding the offence is pending adjudication by the Company Law Board, the interim order of stay granted by this Court on 18.06.2014 shall continue till the disposal of the said application.