: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5408 OF 2009 Sigmalon Equipment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. Vinod Kumar ... Respondent Mr.D.H. Patel i/b Mulla & Mulla CBC for Petitioner Respondent present in person CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 25th JUNE, 2009 P. C.: 1. The Petitioners have challenged the order dated 6.2.2009 passed by the Principal Bench of the Company Law Board (CLB) at New Delhi by which the Company has been directed to maintain status quo with respect to the fixed assets of the company. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the order dated 26.5.2009 passed by the CLB directing them to produce certain documents for inspection on 6.7.2009. 2. The petitioners contend that while passing the aforesaid orders they were not given any opportunity to reply to the application filed by the respondent before the CLB in December 2008. According to the petitioners, the order dated 6.2.2009 grants prayers which have not been sought by the respondent in his application and, therefore, that order needs to be set aside. Apart from this, it is contended that the : 2 : proceedings should be transferred to the Bombay bench of the CLB which is now functioning. 3. Mr.Patel appearing for the petitioners points out that after the order was passed on 6.2.2009, an application was moved by the petitioners for modification of the order by which the Company was directed to give inspection of the documents mentioned in para 13 of the Company Application No.39 of 2009 and the order directing them to maintain status quo with regard to the fixed assets of the company. However, it appears that without deciding this application which has now been fixed on 29.7.2009, the CLB by its order of 26.5.2009 directed the petitioners to produce the documents mentioned in para 13 of Company Application No.39 of 2009 on 6.7.2009. The learned Counsel submits that no order can be passed granting relief to a party unless that relief has been sought in an application. He points out that the direction of the CLB to the petitioners to maintain status quo regarding the fixed assets of the company was not sought for by the respondent and therefore the CLB ought not to have passed such an order. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel relies on the judgment in the case of Chandigarh Administration v/s. Laxman Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 326. 4. The writ petition is opposed vehemently by the respondent who appears in person. He contends that he has been made to run from pillar to post in order to get his remuneration as a Director of the Company. He contends that till such time as there is a valuation of the Company's assets which is approved and the assets are divided, he continues to be a Director of the Company and is entitled to remuneration. : 3 : 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners disputes the fact that the respondent continues to be a Director of the Company. 6. A perusal of the prayers contained in the application i.e. C.A. No.39 of 2009 indicates that the respondent herein has not sought an order directing the Company to maintain status quo with respect to the fixed assets of the Company. However, the prayer of the respondent regarding remuneration as a Director is yet to be considered by the CLB. In this view of the matter, the order dated 6.2.2009 is modified to the extent that the fixed assets of the company will not be sold by the petitioners without leave from the CLB. The company may lease any property owned by it, if found necessary. However, all such documents pertaining to the lease will be provided to the valuer when required. 7. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings should be transferred to the Bombay Bench of the CLB must be accepted in view of the fact that it is now functioning in Mumbai. Both the petitioners and the respondent are from Pune and therefore, it would be convenient for them to appear before the Bombay bench of the CLB. 8. The petition is therefore disposed of with the following order: i) The Principal Bench of the Company Law Board, New Delhi is directed to transfer the proceedings in Company Petition No.12 of 1998 and all proceedings arising therefrom including C.A. Nos.39 of 2009, 156 of 2009 and 184 of 2009 to the Bombay Bench within 10 days from today. : 4 : ii) The matter has been fixed on 6.7.2009 for inspection. That order is kept in abeyance. iii) The CLB, Bombay Bench will decide the application filed by the Respondent in December 2008 being C.A. No.39 of 2009 after considering the reply filed by the petitioners. iv) The CLB will decide the application No.39 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within four weeks after receipt of the proceedings from the Principal Bench. 9. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.