// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2443/2008 With S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.513/2008 S.M. Telesys Ltd., through its Director Shri Sanjay Kumar Versus Esquire Electronics Inc., New York, USA and Another Date of Order ::: 16.09.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Rajeev Surana, Counsel for petitioner Shri Akhil Simlote, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 22nd January, 2008 passed by Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection that the impugned order is appealable under Section 10-F of the Companies Act, 1956, therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy by way of statutory appeal under Section 10-F of the Companies Act. I have considered the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the respondents. // 2 // Section 10-F of the Companies Act is reproduced as under:- “10F. Appeals against the order of the Company Law Board.- Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Company Law Board may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Company Law Board to him on any question of law arising out of such order: Provided that the High Court may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.” The aforesaid provision makes it clear that the impugned order passed by the Company Law Board is appealable under Section 10-F of the Companies Act, therefore, the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy by way of statutory appeal. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed on this ground alone without going into and examining the merits of the case. So far as the period spent by the petitioner in prosecuting this writ petition is concerned, the same will definitely be considered for condoning the delay while // 3 // considering the application to be filed for condonation of delay under the Proviso to Section 10-F of the Companies Act. No order as to costs. Consequent upon dismissal of the writ petition itself, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//