IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO.841 OF 2007 NO.841 OF 2007 NO.841 OF 2007 in in in COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY APPEAL NO.18 OF 2000 APPEAL NO.18 OF 2000 APPEAL NO.18 OF 2000 in in in COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY LAW BOARD PETITION NO.15 OF 1998 LAW BOARD PETITION NO.15 OF 1998 LAW BOARD PETITION NO.15 OF 1998 M/s Samriti Chemicals Ltd, a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, Iof 1956 and having its registered office at Plot Nos. 50-51 Pachora Co-op Hsg.Soc Ltd, Pachora District Jalgaon, State of Maharashtra .. Appellants vs Better Value Leasing & Finance Ltd, a Company having its office at 7/10, Botawala Building Horminan Circle, Fort, Mumbai - 400 001. .. Respondents with with with APPEAL NO.842 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.842 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.842 OF 2007 in in in COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2000 APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2000 APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2000 in in in COMPANY COMPANY COMPANY LAW BOARD PETITION NO. 1 OF 1999 LAW BOARD PETITION NO. 1 OF 1999 LAW BOARD PETITION NO. 1 OF 1999 M/s Samriti Chemicals Ltd, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its office at 50-51, Pachora Coop Hsg Society, Pachora, District Jalgaon, Maharashtra ... Appellant (Orig.Appellant) vs M/s Vig Management Services Pvt.Ltd 202, Planet Industrial Estate, Vile Parle (East) Mumbai-400 057. .. Respondent (Orig.Respondent) Mr.N.S.Sharipalli for Appellant Mr.B.B.Saraf with Mr.S.S.Kalambi i.b Federal Rashmikant for Respondents in Appeal No.842/07 CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR AND : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR AND : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR AND A.V.NIRGUDE, A.V.NIRGUDE, A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ JJ JJ DATE DATE DATE : 17th April, 2008 17th April, 2008 17th April, 2008 2 P.C. P.C. P.C. (Per R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J ) (Per R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J ) (Per R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J ) 1. Heard. Since common questions of law and facts arose in all three appeals, they were heard together and are beingdisposed of by the common order. 2. At the outset, Mr.Saraf appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection about the non-maintainability of the appeals while relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Kamal Kamal Kamal Kumar Dutta vs Ruby General Hospital Ltd Kumar Dutta vs Ruby General Hospital Ltd Kumar Dutta vs Ruby General Hospital Ltd reported reported reported in 2006 (7) Scale 668. in 2006 (7) Scale 668. in 2006 (7) Scale 668. 3. Drawing our attention to the impugned judgments, which specifically states that they were passed in an appeals under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 learned Advocate appearing for the respondents stated that the Apex Court in Kamal Kumar Dutta’s case while dealing with the issue regarding the maintainability of the appeal against order passed by the High Court in exercise of the powers under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 has held that no further appeal is maintainable against such order and therefore, according to the counsel for the respondents 3 present appeals are to be rejected in limine. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the present appeals were filed based on orders passed by this Court in the matter of Maharashtra Power Development Corporation Ltd Maharashtra Power Development Corporation Ltd Maharashtra Power Development Corporation Ltd vs vs vs Dabhol Power Company reported in 2003 (17) Dabhol Power Company reported in 2003 (17) Dabhol Power Company reported in 2003 (17) Company Company Company cases 651. cases 651. cases 651. He however, candidly admitted that the said decision has been specifically overruled by the Apex Court in Kamal Kumar Dutta’s case. 5. A bare perusal of the appeals would disclose that they have been passed in Company Appeals which have been filed under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 and the Apex Court in Kamal Kumar Dutta’s case has specifically ruled that : " Where appeal has been decided from an original order by a single Judge, no further appeal has been provided and that power which used to be thereunder the Letters Patent of the High Court has been subsequently withdrawn. The present order which has been passed by the CLB and against that appeal has been provided 4 before the High Court under section 10F of the Act, that is an appeal from the original order. Then in that case no further Letters Patent appeal shall lie to the Division Bench of the same High Court. 6. The law being thus settled by the decision of the Apex Court in Kamal Kumar Dutta’s case it is apparent that once the High Court disposes of the appeals which was filed under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 there could be no further appeal against the judgment passed in such a case. Hence, the preliminary objection sought to be raised by the respondents is well founded and while accepting the same, the appeals are liable to be dismissed in limine. Appeals are therefore, dismissed in limine. ( R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J ) R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J ) R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J ) ( A.V.Nirgude, J ) A.V.Nirgude, J ) A.V.Nirgude, J )