:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2008 COMPANY APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2008 COMPANY APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 1309 OF 2008 COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 1309 OF 2008 COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 1309 OF 2008 Kingstar Realtors Pvt. Ltd. ..Appellant versus Mahal Pictures Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. F. D’Vitre with Mr. D. A. Athavale for the Appellant. Mr. Y. Bhargavan for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. DATE : 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. DATE : 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard. Admit. By consent taken up for final hearing. 2. The appellant has assailed the order of the Company Law Board on a single ground which deserves to be upheld, i.e. as follows:- "From the above it will be seen that there is a notice of motion issued by Hon’ble High Court wherein a prayer has been made restraining the shareholders of Mahal Pictures Private Limited from transferring their shares in any manner and also from :2: creating any third party rights in the said Company." Learned counsel for the appellant points out that only order passed by the High Court is on a notice of motion praying that the land of the respondents company be not transferred. The respondents have also in their reply before the Company Law Board vide paragraph 16 have referred to the said order. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Company Law Board was not justified in refusing to entertain the application under Section 111 A of the Companies Act on the mere chance of getting a conflicting order with that of the High Court. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Company Law Board has not referred to the notice of motion pertaining to the land of the company but has referred to the notice of motion which is pending adjudication being notice of motion No. 4070 of 2007 in Suit No. 2809 of 2005 filed by the Director and shareholder of the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that ex facie that notice of motion is intended only to restrain the respondents from transferring their shares to a third party i.e. to a party other than :3: appellant i.e. Kingstar Realtors Pvt. Ltd. The Company Law Board has not considered this aspect either. 5. In view of the above, it is clear while the Company Law Board cannot act in contravention of any of the Order of the High Court, it is obvious that there is no such order. The apprehension of an order to the contrary was not sufficient for the Company Law Board to decline to entertain the appellant’s application. In the circumstances, I am of view that order in appeal deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Company Law Board for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The Company Law Board shall decide all contentions raised by the parties including the contention of the respondents that the Company Law Board has no jurisdiction under Section 111, at this stage. Appeal disposed of with above directions. In view of the disposal of the Appeal, Company Application No. 1309 of 2008 does not survive, hence dismissed. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)