2020 (7) TMI 561 - AT - Companies Law

Maintenance of status quo about fixed assets and shareholding pattern of the Company - principal of lis pendence - HELD THAT - It is apparent that NCLT has rejected the prayer of R-1 for impleading subsequent purchaser as party to the proceedings. However, directed that the subsequent purchaser s right will be governed by Principal of lis pendence and the issue is kept open. It means such order is not final. Impugned order upheld - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disposal of applications I.A No. 222/2017 and I.A No. 352/2017 by NCLT, Kolkata Bench.
2. Aggrieved appeals filed by Mooldhan Advisory System Pvt. Ltd. and Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills company Ltd.
3. Company Petition under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act 1956 filed by Yashdeep Trexim Pvt. Ltd.
4. Relief sought by Mooldhan Advisory System Pvt. Ltd. to modify interim injunction order.
5. Disposition of applications by NCLT and subsequent appeals.

Analysis:
1. The NCLT, Kolkata Bench disposed of applications I.A No. 222/2017 and I.A No. 352/2017 filed by Yashdeep Trexim Pvt. Ltd. and Mooldhan Advisory System Pvt. Ltd. respectively. The parties were aggrieved, leading to the filing of appeals.

2. Mooldhan Advisory System Pvt. Ltd. (A-1) filed Company Appeal (AT) No. 266/2019, while Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills company Ltd. (A-2) filed Company Appeal No. 294/2019, both challenging the NCLT's orders.

3. Yashdeep Trexim Pvt. Ltd. filed a company petition under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act 1956, which was transferred to NCLT, Kolkata Bench. Various reliefs were sought, including adding parties who were subsequent purchasers of the company's properties.

4. Mooldhan Advisory System Pvt. Ltd. sought relief to modify an interim injunction order issued by the Tribunal, affecting compliance with SEBI orders. The Tribunal's decision on this matter was crucial for Mooldhan Advisory System Pvt. Ltd.

5. The NCLT disposed of the applications, leading to appeals. The Appellate Tribunal reviewed the orders and found that the reliefs sought in the applications were different. While setting aside the order on I.A No. 352/2017 for lack of reasoning, the Tribunal maintained the decision on I.A No. 222/2017. The issue of subsequent purchasers and the principle of lis pendens were crucial aspects considered in the judgment. The Appeal No. 266/2019 was allowed, while Appeal No. 294/2019 was dismissed, with no order as to costs.