Lsp IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2008 IN CLB COMPANY PETITION NO. 22 OF 2006 Choksi Tube Company Ltd. ...Appellants V/s. Reachwell KSM Properties Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondents ALONGWITH COMPANY APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2008 IN CLB COMPANY PETITION NO.22 OF 2006 Harshad Harilal Chokosi & ors. ...Appellants V/s. Reachwell KSM Properties Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondents Simil Purohit i/b. Udwadia & Udeshi for appellants in both appeals. Mr. S.J.Shah i/b. Satyen Israni for respondents in both appeals. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : 21st November, 2008 : 21st November, 2008 : 21st November, 2008 P.C. . Preliminary objection is raised regarding the maintainability of these appeals. According to respondents, the appeals ought to have been presented before the Gujarat High Court albeit delivered by the Company Law Board, Western Region Bench. This is so because admittedly the registered office of the appellant company is at Ahmedabad which is within the jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court. To buttress 2 this submission reliance is placed on the exposition of Apex Court reported in Stridewell Leathers (P) Ltd. & Stridewell Leathers (P) Ltd. & Stridewell Leathers (P) Ltd. & ors. ors. ors. v/s. Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages (P) Ltd. v/s. Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages (P) Ltd. v/s. Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages (P) Ltd. reported reported reported in AIR 1994 SC 158. in AIR 1994 SC 158. in AIR 1994 SC 158. Similar contention was considered in the said matter. In that matter, the registered office of the company was within the jurisdiction of Madras High Court. Since the order was passed by the Company Law Board at Delhi, appeal was preferred before the Delhi High Court. Dealing with the situation, Apex Court in paragraph 12 and 13 observed thus: "The provision in S. 10E for the Company Law Board to have more than one Bench and the Company Law Board Regulations 1991 framed under S. 10E(6) of the Act providing for sitting of the Benches at different places in the country does not give any clue to the construction of the expression "the High Court" in S.10F. On behalf of the respondents it was urged, that all appeals under S.10F would lie to the Delhi High Court where the Principal Bench of the Company Law Board ordinarily sits but if the order under appeal is made at any other place in the country where the Bench sits, then the High Court having jurisdiction over that place can entertain the appeal. In our opinion, this is too nebulous a concept for deciding the question of jurisdiction and determination of the forum of appeal and, if accepted would tend to empower the Company Law Board to determine the forum of appeal by the choice of place of sitting under the Regulations for making the order. We have no doubt that the forum of appeal indicated in S. 10F is a definite forum determined by the provisions of the Act and not by the Regulations framed by the Company Law board under S.10E(6) or the place of its sitting under the Regulations. These Regulations framed by the Company Law Board to regulate its own procedure are, therefore, of no assistance for decision of the controversy. It may be mentioned that the original jurisdiction 3 to try a petition for winding up of a company continues to remain in the concerned High Court even though the original jurisdiction in respect of a petition under Ss.397 and 398 is transferred to the Company Law Board. It is obvious that the appeal against an order made by the Company Judge of the High Court in a winding up petition continues to lie before a Division Bench in the same High Court. If the construction suggested on behalf of the respondents be correct then that High Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the Company law Board’s order while appeal from the Company Judge’s order in a winding up petition in respect of the same company would lie there. This appears to be incongruous. A possible anomaly of this kind would be prevented by taking the view which we have indicated." 2. The exposition in the said decision squarely applies to the fact situation of the present case. In the circumstances, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of respondents will have to be accepted. Counsel for the appellants would submit that in that case appeals be returned to appellants to be presented before appropriate forum. Counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that he would have no objection for allowing the appellants to take the matter before the Gujarat High Court. In the circumstances, the Office is directed to return the proceedings to the appellant to be presented before appropriate forum. . Ordered accordingly. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]