before the company law board - Company Law Board Mumbai Bench

6being conducted in relation to the affairs of the Company and toregulate the affairs of the Company but the proposed party, affairscannot be adjudicated since it is not governed by the CompaniesAct, 1956. In support of his contention he relied upon thefollowing decisions:CA 177 of 2010Multi Screen1) (2003) 5 SCC Page 531 In the matter of SukanyaHoldings Pvt.Ltd. vs Jayesh H. Pandya & Another. It is heldthat “there is no provision in the Act for bifurcating the suit intotwo parts, one to be referred to arbitration for adjudication andthe other to be decided by Civil Court.”2) (1992) 2 SCC Page 525 In the matter of RameshHirachand Kundanmal vs. Municipal Corporation of GreaterBombay. Para 143) AIR 1968 (Madras High Court) Page 287 In thematter of Firm of Mahadeo Rice & Oil Mills & Ors. vs.Chennimalai Gounder.It is of the view that - Addition of parties – proper party - Courthas no jurisdiction to add party unless it is necessary or properparty. Tests to be followed in adding parties.4) AIR 1955 (Madras High Court) Page 595 In thematter of Kurivalli Lingayya Setty vs. Sitharam Agarwala &Anr. It is of the view - thus, if the Court has no jurisdiction byreason of sections 19 & 20 over one of the defendants joined under