- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. WRIT PETITION NO.1284 OF 1988 ... Voltas Ltd. ...Petitioners v/s. Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.Gaurav Joshi i/b Mulla & Mulla for the Petitioners. Mr.R.V.Desai with Ms.S.V.Bharucha for the Respondents. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 22ND OCTOBER, 2008 P.C.: 1. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the - 2 - order dated 21-1-1988 passed by the Respondents declining to approve the appointment of the Petitioner No.2 as an Executive Chairman in exercise of its power under Section 269(3) of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. Perusal of the order shows that one circumstance which weighed with the Central Government in declining to approve appointment of the of the Petitioner as Executive Chairman was pending prosecution against the company/directors including the Petitioner No.2 for violation of the provisions of the Central Excise Act. The order was made in the year 1988. We have been informed by the learned Counsel appearing for both sides that the show cause notice that was issued under the Central Excise Act against the Petitioner No.2 relating to the same incident which is the subject matter of the prosecution has been withdrawn by the Central Excise. Pending prosecution which is relied on in the order, we have been informed at the bar, is still pending before the criminal court without any progress. 3. The Petitioner No.2 is also not with the Petitioner No.1 company from the year 2000. The law - 3 - in relation to the approval of the appointment of the Executive Chairman has also been subsequently amended. 4. In these circumstances, taking overall view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, it will not be in the interest of justice to continue the order dated 21-1-1988 in force. 5. In the result, therefore, the present petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 21-1-1988 impugned in the petition is set aside. The Central Government shall be at liberty to make appropriate order on the application filed by the Petitioner No.1-company in accordance with law, if so advised. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)