2023 (1) TMI 151 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Locus standi to file the Company Petition - shareholding of petitioner is 70% or not - HELD THAT - This Tribunal lucidly makes it quite clear that the Tentative Observations made to the effect that the very Locus standi of the Petitioners to file Company Petition at stake etc. shall not stand in the way of the Tribunal in deciding or rendering findings of the Locus of the Petitioners and the issues / points for determination while adverting to the same and the Tentative Finding so rendered in the impugned orders cannot be a decisive and governing factor for the Tribunal to decide the main Company Petition in a final and conclusive manner of course in a fair just dispassionate manner and to pass a reasoned speaking order in a qualitative and quantitative terms by adverting to the points / issues raised and the documents were filed or produced and after weighing the pros and cons of the materials can arrive at a reasonable prudent conclusion viz. in the manner known to Law and in accordance with Law after providing due opportunities to the relevant parties by adhering to the principles of Natural Justice in stricto senso of the term. This Tribunal points out that liberty is granted to the Appellants / Petitioners to raise all factual and legal issues before the Tribunal (National Company Law Tribunal Hyderabad Bench Hyderabad) including the aspect of the Locus standi of the Appellants/ Petitioners in regard to the shares held by them and the Tribunal shall permit the Appellants / Petitioners to raise their defences in support of their claims strictly in accordance with Law if they so desire / advised - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order on locus standi to file company petition.

Analysis:
The Appellants challenged the impugned order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, questioning their locus standi to file the Company Petition. The Tribunal had observed that the petitioner's claim of holding 70% share was false and that they failed to provide relevant material to establish their shareholding. The Tribunal noted that without establishing locus standi, seeking reliefs in the petition was questionable. The Tribunal disposed of the applications based on these observations.

The Appellants contended that their locus standi was wrongly questioned by the Tribunal, highlighting that Mr. Rajeev Satpal Lakhanpal held 70% shares as per the Memorandum of Association. They argued that this aspect should have been considered before questioning their right to file the Company Petition. The Senior Counsel for the Appellants emphasized that proceeding with the Main Company Petition would cause serious prejudice and irreparable hardship to them.

After hearing the arguments, the Appellate Tribunal declined to set aside the impugned orders but acknowledged that Mr. Rajeev Satpal Lakhanpal indeed held 70% shares as per the Memorandum of Association. The Tribunal directed the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, to frame a necessary issue for determination regarding the Appellants' locus to file the Company Petition. It emphasized the importance of considering relevant documents, like the Memorandum of Association, during the final disposal of the Main Company Petition.

The Appellate Tribunal clarified that the tentative observations regarding the locus standi of the Petitioners should not hinder the Tribunal from rendering a fair and just decision based on all relevant points and documents presented. It stressed the need for a reasoned speaking order, adherence to natural justice principles, and a prudent conclusion in accordance with the law. The Three Appeals were disposed of with liberty granted to the Appellants to raise all factual and legal issues, including their locus standi, before the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench.