Jer Rutton Kavasmneck alias Jer Jawahar Thandi - Bombay High ...

hvn
36/195
COAPPL41.12
hesitate to accept a contention which leads to consequences so
startling, unless there are compelling reasons therefore. Far from that
being the case, both principle and authority are clearly adverse to it.”
38. In rejoinder on this issue the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent no.2 distinguished the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of Sree Meenakshi Mills (supra) on the ground that the said judgment did not
pertain to appeal under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 and in any
event does not hold that the question of law means mixed question of facts
and law or that this court is empowered to reconsider the facts and come to a
different conclusion on such reconsideration. It is reiterated that plain reading
of section 10F of the Companies Act makes it clear that the appeal may be
filed only on the question of law. The CLB has rendered findings of facts and
thus interference of this court under section 10F is not permissible.
39. In my view, the appeal lies to the High Court under Section 10F on any
question of law arising from any decision or order of the Company Law
Board. The finding of fact recorded by CLB Is final and is not appealable
unless it is perverse, based on no evidence or otherwise arbitrary. Even if the
court would have come to a different conclusion on the facts, appeal cannot be
entertained on a mere finding of fact. The Supreme Court in case of
V.S.Krishnan (supra) has held that section 10F can be invoked only on a
question of law and CLB is final authority on facts unless such findings are