9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 749 - AT - Companies LawOppression and Mismanagement - non-speaking order - misguided attempt to scuttle proceedings brought by the Respondent before the NCLT - HELD THAT - Since this Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) No. 99 of 2021 sets aside the impugned order dated 03.03.2021 passed by the NCLT, Ahmedabad Bench in C.P. No. 100 of 2018 whereby the NCLT allowed withdrawal of withdrawal pursis made in C.P. No. 100 of 2018, consequently, the C.P. No. 100 of 2018 and the withdrawal of withdrawal pursis has to be heard and decided by the NCLT afresh. Thereby this Tribunal is of the view that the C.P. No. 100 of 2018 and its continuum was suspended until the issue of withdrawal of withdrawal pursis is decided. That being so, the passing of interim order in such a situation may not be appropriate. The order of NCLT set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
The appeal filed u/s 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 against an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad, involving allegations of oppression and mismanagement, withdrawal of withdrawal pursis, and maintenance of status quo over immovable property. Brief Facts: The Appellant challenged an order passed by the NCLT, alleging that the Respondent obtained interim orders in a mala fide manner, leading to a violation of judicial propriety. The Respondent claimed that withdrawal of withdrawal pursis was under duress and coercion, citing a Settlement Agreement and false criminal complaints. The NCLT passed an interim order to maintain status quo, pending appeal, in a case involving withdrawal of withdrawal pursis. Appellant's Submissions: The Appellant contended that the NCLT's order was non-speaking and passed without appreciating the facts, urging the Bench to set it aside. They argued that the withdrawal of withdrawal pursis was not permissible and that the interim order violated judicial propriety due to a pending appeal challenging the withdrawal. The Appellant sought to overturn the impugned order dated 17.01.2022. Respondent's Submissions: The Respondent claimed that the withdrawal of withdrawal pursis was bona fide and moved under duress, highlighting a Settlement Agreement and false criminal complaints. They argued that the NCLT's interim order was lawful, as the withdrawal pursis were withdrawn by the 1st Respondent, keeping the C.P. No. 100 of 2018 in continuum. The Respondent requested the Bench to dismiss the Appeal. Analysis / Appraisal: The NCLT's order directed the parties to maintain status quo over the immovable property, subject to a pending appeal. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the NCLT's order dated 17.01.2022, emphasizing that the C.P. No. 100 of 2018 and the withdrawal of withdrawal pursis needed to be heard afresh. The Tribunal held that passing an interim order in such a situation might not be appropriate, especially when the issue was subject to a pending appeal. Conclusion: The NCLT's order dated 17.01.2022 was set aside, and the Company Appeal (AT) No. 29 of 2022 was allowed, with no order as to costs.
|
