: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPEAL (LODGING) NO.7 OF 2009 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.129 OF 2008 Ketan V. Parekh & Ors. ....Appellants V/s. Union of India & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.Zal Andhyarujina with Mr.Rajesh Khandelwal i/b Juris Matrix for the Appellants. Ms.Jyoti Singh with Mr.Avinash Singh Gautama and Ms.Mrudula Khedekar for Respondent No.1. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 26TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. : 1. This is an appeal under Section 10-F of the Companies Act, 1956 against the order of the Company Law Board dated 23.12.2008. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to interfere with the order. This is despite the fact that there was no justification for making the application without notice to the Appellant. Ms.Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 fairly stated that there is nothing stated in the Petition regarding the necessity of having made the application ex-parte and without notice. Nor was she able to : 2 : furnish any justification for the same even today. 3. The impugned order restrains the directors from functioning as the directors of the company. Normally this would be a drastic order. However, admittedly in the present case, no business is being carried on by the company. I appreciate that the order has the effect of even restraining the company and its directors from prosecuting any litigation and complying with the statutory requirements. It is necessary for the company to do so either by the Board of Directors independently or pursuant to protective orders of the Company Law Board, if necessary. However no immediate requirements in this regard are pointed out. 4. The second part of the order requires the directors to declare their assets and properties and to file the same. There is however, no time limit stipulated for the same. Thus the Appellants can without any prejudice to them apply for setting aside the order. 5. In these peculiar facts, it would be appropriate to permit the Appellants to make an application before the Company Law Board for modification of or setting aside the order. : 3 : Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, no protective orders are required to be passed by this Court despite the fact that there was no justification pointed out for having moved the application without notice to the Appellants. The application for vacating or modifying the order, if made, shall be heard as expeditiously as possible and shall not be tagged to the final hearing of the petition. . The Company Appeal is accordingly disposed of.