1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR COMPANY APPEAL (SB) NO.6 OF 2011. India Globalization Capital, Mauritius, C/o Multiconsult Limited. .Vrs. Sricon Infrastructure Private Limited and Others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. (Mr. A.A.Naik, Advocate for petitioner.) (Mr. Amit Khare Advocate for respondent No.5 Mr. P.R.Asad, Advocate for respondent no 1 and 2) -0-0- CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 11 th July, 2011. The above appeal takes exceptions to the order dated 07.06.2011 passed by the learned Company Law Board, Mumbai Bench, by which the application s C.A. No. 30/2011 and C.A. No. 66/2011 came to be disposed of. The said applications were filed in Company Petition No 2/397-398/CLB/MB/2011 pending before the Learned Company Board in which petition various provisions of the Company Act have been invoked alleging the act of misappropriation and 2 mismanagement in the affairs of the company in the petition substantive reliefs and interim reliefs have been sought. The appellant claims to be a majority share holder, an application came to be filed by the appellant for inspection of various documents which were mentioned in the said application. The said application came to be allowed by the Company Law Board by its order dated 13th January 2011 and the Company was directed to allow inspection of the record of the company on any working day during business hours, which was to be decided on prior intimation to the company. In view of the fact that the said directions as contained in the order dated 13th January, 2011 were not complied with, in as much as, though the representative of the appellant had presented himself for inspection no inspection was granted. The appellant moved another application for implementation to the said order dated 13.01.2011. The said application was numbered as C.A. No. 30/2011 on which an order dated 07th April, 2011 came to be passed, directing the company to grant inspection. In view of the non-compliance of the said order also the appellant filed further application 3 which was numbered as 66/2011 for compliance of the first order dated 13.01.2011, which was passed on 7th April, 2011. As indicated above, the said application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 07/06/2011. The ground on which the application has been rejected is that in spite of the opportunity the appellant has not taken inspection for the reason best known to it. During the course of the hearing of the above Appeal the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Shri Naik drew my attention to the inspection report which is in respect of the inspection that was carried out on 29th June, 2011. The said report contains documents listed from item No.1 to item No.14. The said inspection report contains the remark 'not available' in respect of almost all the items. The said inspection report has been signed on behalf of the appellant Company as well as the respondent. However, it is the case of Shir Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the note on page No.3 to the said inspection report has been affixed later on so as to indicate that though agreed upon the inspection is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the 4 respondents. It is the contention of Shri Naik, Learned Counsel for appellant relying on the said note that the said note exemplifies how the respondent Company is conducting itself in the matter of granting inspection to the appellant company. During the course of hearing of the above appeal the learned Counsel Shri Khare, appearing on behalf of the respondent Company fairly states that inspection in respect of the 14 items would be granted by the respondent Company in terms of the directions that would be issued by this Court on this behalf. In view of the said statement of Shri Khare, learned Counsel for the appellant the acrimony between the parties can be resolved by issuing the following directions. 1. The respondent Company to grant inspection of the 14 items mentioned in the said inspection report dated 29.06.2011 commencing from 22nd July, 2011 at 11.00 am. 2. The inspection to be carried out under the supervision of an officer nominated by the learned Registrar of this Court. 3. The inspection to be granted to the full satisfaction of the appellant's counsel and copies to 5 be furnished at the costs of the appellant's counsel if asked for. In view of the directions as contained herein above the impugned order date 07th June, 2011, stands modified. the appeal is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. Appeal disposed of. JUDGE. scd//