2017 (9) TMI 1618 - Tri - Companies Law

Notice of termination of the contract with J.V. Company - prayer made to set aside the notice of termination and declare each of the Operating Licence Agreements/ Franchise Agreements in respect of 145 restaurants to be valid and subsisting - further direction has been sought to non applicant-respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to execute Operating Licence Agreements/ Franchise Agreements in respect of 20 restaurants as per the notice of termination - Held that - This application at this stage would not be maintainable because both the applications as well as non applicant-Respondent No.l have filed their respective appeals which are pending before the Learned National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. It is no dispute that the present issue in question pertaining to notice of termination dated 21.08.2017 has already been placed before Hon ble NCLAT in the pending appeal. We further feel that at this stage it would be unnecessary because Hon ble Justice G.S. Singhvi, the administrator appointed by us by order dated 13.7.2017 granted applicant leave to file application for interim relief before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.

Summary

Issues:
Application for setting aside notice of termination and validity of Operating Licence Agreements/Franchise Agreements.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside a notice of termination issued by the non-applicant/respondent after the disposal of a company petition. The petitioner requested the declaration of the validity and subsistence of Operating Licence Agreements/Franchise Agreements for 145 restaurants, along with a direction for executing agreements for 20 restaurants. The learned Senior Counsel opposed the prayers made by the petitioner.

Upon hearing the arguments of both parties, the Tribunal concluded that the application was not maintainable at that stage. This decision was based on the fact that both parties had filed appeals before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, which were pending consideration. The Tribunal noted that the issue regarding the notice of termination had already been brought before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in the pending appeal, and the administrator appointed by the Tribunal had granted leave for filing an application for interim relief.

Given the pending appeals and the involvement of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal deemed it unnecessary to entertain the application for interim relief. It was decided that any such application should be preferred before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal for propriety. Consequently, the application before the Tribunal was dismissed without costs. Importantly, the Tribunal clarified that the dismissal did not imply a consideration of the issues on merit, and the order should not be interpreted as expressing any opinion on the underlying controversy.