: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPEAL (LDG.) NO.14 OF 2009 WITH COMPANY APPLICATION (LDG.) NO.251 OF 2009 IN (CLB) COMPANY PETITION NO.71 OF 2006 Pradip Vakil ....Appellant V/s. Union of India ....Respondent Mr.Pradeep Vakil, the Appellant present in person. Mr.C.J. Joy for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 26TH MARCH, 2009. P.C. : 1. At the request of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The Appellant filed an appeal before the Company Law Board seeking a transfer of the Petition and all the proceedings to the Regional Bench at Mumbai. 3. By an order dated 12.8.2008, the Company Law Board rejected the application. The application however was rejected on the ground that a similar application had been dismissed by an order of the : 2 : Company Law Board dated 16.11.2006 in Company Application No.350 of 2006. It was held that the Appellant’s application for transfer was therefore not maintainable. It was further observed that the Regional Bench of the Company Law Board at Mumbai has jurisdiction only in respect of the proceedings instituted with effect from 1.4.2008. 4. The judgment of the Company Law Board does not take into consideration the relevant aspects. The earlier order of the Company Law Board dated 16.11.2006 passed by the Principal Bench of the Company Law Board does not bar the present Company Application No.15 of 2009 filed by the Appellant. This is for the reason that after the order was passed, by a notification dated 17.3.2008, the Company Law Board in exercise of powers under the Companies Act, 1956 made regulations further to amend the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991 regulation 2(2) whereof reads thus :- "2(2). The Principal Bench shall be at New Delhi but it may sit at any other place in India at its discretion or at the joint request of all the parties". 5. The Company Law Board is therefore bound to : 3 : exercise its discretion while accepting or rejecting the application for transfer. This has not been done. As stated earlier, the order dated 16.11.2006 does not prevent the Company Law Board from exercising its discretion in view of the changed circumstances namely issuance of the notification amending the Company Law Board Regulation, 1991. . The Appellant has referred to various medical certificates indicating enormous difficulties that he is facing on account of his ailing health. He stated that he is suffering from cancer and heart ailments. The certificates must be considered and cannot be ignored. 6. In any event, these are the aspects which the Company Law Board may take into consideration while exercising its discretion under the newly framed regulations to decide whether the Appellant’s application for transfer ought or not to be granted. 7. In the circumstances, the Appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set-aside and the Company Law Board is directed to consider the Appellant’s application afresh. Till the application is decided and for a period of two weeks thereafter, further proceedings before the Company Law Board in New Delhi : 4 : shall remain stayed. It is clarified that if for any reason the matter is to be heard in Mumbai, the stay shall not operate. The Company Law Board shall intimate the date of hearing of the application to the Appellant. The Appellant and the Respondent shall forthwith forward a copy of this order to the Company Law Board. . All parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate/Private Secretary of this Court.