9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic Project in District Shimla. Precisely speaking, the Respondent/Applicant Advocate has submitted that the Implementation Agreement ((IA) dated 1.3.2008 was signed between the Government of Himachal Pradesh and Respondent No. 5 for implementation of the aforesaid project. As per the terms & conditions of the said Agreement, the Independent Power Producer (IPP) was supposed to start construction at site within six months from the date of signing of Implementation Agreement i.e. on or before 31st August,2008 after obtaining all statutory/non-statutory clearances. Further, it has been stated that as per present the policy guidelines of Himachal Pradesh Energy Development Agency, regarding extension in time period in Implementation Agreement maximum 36 months are allowed subject to payment of extension fees by the Independent Power Producers (IPP) and hence, the Respondent No.l Company is required to complete the project expeditiously and within the time frame fixed for the purpose. 1.1 The Respondent/Applicant Advocate has further submitted that the Respondent No.l Company has not been able to start the construction activity on the Hydro Power project till date and has been paying a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs to Mehra Group. However, after the sale of shares by the Mehra Group, R-4 has nothing to do with the management of the company but still continuing in the transitional phase till the discretion of the new management. Further, it has been reiterated that Mehra Group has sold all their shares to R-14 and their nominees and have no grievance about the transaction except that balance amount of Rs.10 lacs is to be received but have confidence on the buyer and have no grievance on this amount also. Thus, the transactions of sale is 100% complete from the side of Mehra Group. Apart from this, it has also been stated that the buyer has purchased the company for setting up plant taking finance from Banks/Financial Institutions is a necessity and always the first condition of banks/institutions is the mortgage of property of the company, the order of Hon'ble Board dated 11.4.2013 has become a hindrance for the setting up of plant and growth of company which is not in the interest of company and hence, R-4 has no objection if the order is vacated. 3. The Petitioners Advocate has submitted the reply to the present CA stating therein that the Petitioners are the co-promoters along with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was co-promoted by Petitioners Family (Nagrath Family) and Mehra Family and the Applicants are totally strangers in the company and their locus standi is already in question in the Petition. Precisely, it has been averred that the Petitioners have never sold their shares and resigned from the Board as the answering respondents have forged the signatures of the Petitioners to portray a wrong picture. Besides, it has been alleged that the Applicants/Respondents are wrongly claiming to be the directors/majority shareholders of Respondent No.l Company and thereby, seeking the dismissal of the Petition whereas one of the main contentions of the Petitioners is that they have not transferred any shares to the Applicants. In fact, the Petitioners are the co-promoters along with the Mehra Family of the flagship company of the group i.e. Rajit Paints Limited and also of the other sister companies and the Mehra family besides other acts of oppression and mismanagement, have illegally and fraudulent manner ousted the Petitioners group from the Board of all the companies during September-October, 2012 and gained complete control of the companies. Further, it has been alleged that the Mehra Fami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n on the assets of the company cannot he undone. Further, the Applicants are a third party and there will be no check on the financial and business prudence. 7. The Applicants/Respondents No.l, 6, 7 and 14's Advocate extended the arguments that the Implementation Agreement dated 1.3.2008 was signed between the Government of Himachal Pradesh and Respondent No.5 for implementation of Sechi-II, 5 MW Small Hydro Electric Project in District Shimla and as per the terms and conditions of the aforesaid Implementation Agreement, the Independent Power Producer (IPP) was supposed to start construction at site within six months from the date of signing of Implementation Agreement on or before 31th August, 2008 after obtaining all statutory/non-statutory clearances. Further, the present policy guidelines of Himachal Pradesh Energy Development Agency, regarding extension in time period in Implementation Agreement maximum 36 months are allowed subject to payment of extension fees by the Independent Power Producers (IPP). It has also been submitted by the Respondents Advocate that the Respondent No.5 along with Mehra Group and Nagrath Group promoted Respondent No.l Company for implementation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Company was co-promoted by Nagrath Family, Mehra Family and Spaceage Switchgears Ltd. (Respondent No.5) to take up the 5MW Hydro Electric Power Project in Himachal Pradesh. As a matter of fact, the license to construct the Hydro Power Project was obtained by Respondent No.5 i.e. Spacebars Switchgears Ltd. and the said project seems to have been assigned to Respondent No.l Company. However, the Respondent No.l Company has not been able to start the construction activity on the Hydro Power Project till date and has been paying extension fees of Rs.10,000/- per Mega Watt i.e. Rs.50,000/- per month since 1.7.2008. Presently, the Respondent No.l Company is faced with a situation of cancellation of its license to build, own and operate the Sechi-II 5 MW hydro power project, being its only asset. However, on one side, the Respondent/Applicant Advocate alleged that the malafide intention of the Petitioner is evident from the fact that while they claim to be 14% shareholders, they have suppressed the transfer of all their 14% shares and resignation from Board of directors of the Respondent No.l Company. On the other side, the Petitioners/Non-Applicants Advocate has controverted that the M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
