-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2149 OF 2008 Manoj Mohan Sharma ... Petitioner vs. Munir Merchant and others ... Respondents Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, instructed by Mr. Pankaj Vijayan, for the petitioner. Mr. Rafique Peermohiddin, instructed by Mr. Shadab Peerzade, for respondent No.1. Mr. Dhrue Mehta, with Mr. Ashish Wad, Mr. Kiran Desai, instructed by M/s. Earnest Legal Associates, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. A.S. Doctor with Mr. C.D. Patel, instructed by Kanga & Company, for respondent No.7. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2008. P.C. During the course of hearing , learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 states that the report, on the basis of auction held, is under preparation and the same will be ready within few days and thereafter the same will be submitted before the Company Law Board, New Delhi. He further submits that even such a direction has already been given by Patna High Court in review petition preferred by the Petitioner before the Patna High Court. In view of the said statement of the learned counsel, it is for the petitioner to raise whatever objections he can have against the -2- Commissioner's report before the Company Law Board and this Court is not required to express any opinion on this aspect. 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 states that this petition is not maintainable and it may amount to abuse of the process of law as the petitioner has already approached the Patna High Court and Patna High Court has already decided the matter. Prima facie, in our view, the submission seems to be correct. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the auction has been held in Mumbai and the property is located here and he is mainly challenging the procedure adopted by the Commissioner regarding auction. On this aspect, of course, we are not required to say anything more as ultimately it is for the Company Law Board to decide about the said aspect as and when any objection is raised by any party in this behalf. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the copy of the report would be made available to the petitioner. In that view of the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to raise whatever objections he wants to raise before the Company Law Board and the Company Law Board may take appropriate decision after considering the objections raised in this behalf in accordance with law. The sale in question as on date has not been confirmed and it is for the Company Law Board to pass appropriate order. The apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will be dispossessed immediately is not well founded. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in -3- our view, this is not a fit case in which this Court would like to interfere in the matter. The petition is accordingly disposed of, subject to what is stated above. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. A.A. SAYED, J.