2020 (10) TMI 594 - Tri - Companies Law

Demand of amendment in the company petition - Applicant wants 11 types or categories of amendments/enlargements, of which the number of instances, where these amendments/enlargements occur, runs into 108 such instances of amendments being proposed - HELD THAT - As admitted by the Applicant, who presently controls the management of Respondent No.1 Company, the Respondent No. 1 Company M/s. Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd. through present Applicant has filed another petition against the same Respondents in 2016 U/S. 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013 for acts of oppression and mismanagement, wherein an application seeking interim relief is pending consideration before this Bench, admittedly with parallel/similar prayers against the same Respondents. On overall view of the entire scenario amongst the parties, litigations pending, issues involved, and also long pendency of present main petition, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble NCLAT have categorically directed NCLT to ensure an early disposal of the present main petition No. 114/2007, in our view a practical approach to minimize the entire process of litigation needs to be adopted. If the amendments are to be allowed at this stage, these will no doubt change the entire original petition - Application allwoed.

Summary

Issues:
Application for permission to withdraw and file a fresh Company Petition with amendments.

Analysis:
1. The Applicant sought permission to withdraw the Company Petition and file it afresh after making corrections, or alternatively, to allow the amended Company Petition to be taken on record. The Applicant proposed 11 types of amendments/enlargements, totaling 108 instances, which included corrections, additions, and deletions in the original petition.

2. The Applicant presented a summary of the proposed amendments and a convenience chart outlining the reasons for seeking the amendments. Various legal propositions were discussed during the arguments, including the necessity of the amendments for effective adjudication, the bona fide nature of the application, and the potential prejudice to the other party.

3. Despite notice being issued, the Respondents did not file a reply or seek an extension. The Applicant filed an application seeking an ex parte order, which was granted by the Bench. The Respondents were allowed to make legal submissions on the maintainability of the application but not on the facts of the case.

4. Both parties were permitted to submit written arguments, with the Respondents presenting five judgments to support their contention that the application should not be entertained based on legal principles. Factors such as the necessity of the amendments, potential prejudice, and the fundamental nature of the case were discussed.

5. Considering the history of cross litigations between the parties and the long pendency of the main petition, the Bench decided that allowing the proposed amendments would further prolong the litigation process. Granting permission to withdraw the petition and file it afresh was deemed more appropriate to expedite the disposal of the main petition.

6. The Bench granted the Applicant's prayer to withdraw the petition and file it afresh, stating that it would facilitate the expeditious disposal of the main petition. As a result, the alternative prayers for allowing the amended petition or passing ex parte orders were not considered, and all pending applications in the main petition were disposed of accordingly.