1 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPEAL (L) NO. 14 OF 2010 IN COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 113 OF 2009 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 116 OF 2008 Alibante Developments (Cyprus) Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus Gopi Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and others .. Respondents WITH COMPANY APPEAL (L) NO. 15 OF 2010 IN COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 112 OF 2009 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 116 OF 2008 Alibante Developments (Cyprus) Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus Matheran Realty Pvt. Ltd. and others .. Respondents Mr. Rahul Chitnis i/by Khaitan for the Appellant Dr. Veerendra Tulzapurkar Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande a/w Mr. S. Jagtiani a/w Mr. Chirag Mody a/w Ms. Anushka Sharda i/by DSK Legal for the Respondents CORAM : S. J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 7th April, 2010 2 P.C.: 1. Not on board. Take on board. 2. By these appeals, the appellant has impugned the interim order passed by the Company Law Board, Mumbai Branch, dated 23rd March, 2010. Final hearing of the Company Petition No. 116/397/398 of 2008 is, before the Company Law Board, tomorrow i.e. 8th April, 2010. 3. The learned Advocates appearing for the appellant sates that the appeal should be kept pending before this Court since the respondents have not given inspection to the appellant as desired by the appellant. I see no reason why the appeals should be kept pending when the final hearing of the company petition is fixed tomorrow i.e. 8th April, 2010. However, it is clarified that if the Company Law Board, comes to the conclusion that the respondents have not given inspection of the documents to the appellant which they ought to have given, the Company Law Board shall draw an adverse inference against the respondents. 4. In view thereof, both the above Appeals stand disposed of. (S. J. KATHAWALLA, J.)