9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the same day in view of the fact that Shri Rohan Thawani, Counsel for the petitioner, was present before the High Court on the date of such order and represented the petitioner from the very beginning till date. Since no appeal was preferred by the Petitioner against the order dated 26.7.2012, the date when he received a certified copy of the said order looses significance. Therefore, in any case, the exercise of option on 16.8.2012 by the petitioner, Dr, Raj Kachroo, was beyond the period of 15 days contemplated by the order dated 3.9.2007.and in the worst case scenario from 26.7.2012 i.e. the date of the final order passed by the High Court of Delhi in Appeal, is not entitled to any relief. - Appeal dismissed. - C. P. NO. 76 OF 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents, Out the respondents did not respond to the said letters due to which the petitioners were not able to take over the management and control of the company. Accordingly, the petitioners sought action against the respondents for disobedience of the said order and also for a direction to them to hand over the machines, documents, inventories etc., to the petitioners. The said application, CA 152/2007 was disposed of on 3.9.2007 in the following terms : In view of this, if the petitioners are still interested in taking over the control of the company, they should reimburse the respondents of all the amounts that they have brought in for discharging the liabilities of the company after the order dated 21.12.2006, The petitioners s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, only on 14.8,2012. The petitioner, on 16.8.2012, i.e. within two days of the receipt of a copy of the order dated 26.7.2012, had sent a letter to the respondents exercising his option to pay ₹ 16 lakh to Shri Sumer Misri and take over the company. In view of the above, the petitioner contends that there was no delay on his part in complying with the directions to exercise his option within 15 days and was, therefore, entitled to enforcement of the order dated 3.9,2007. 5. Ld. Counsel for the respondents drew my attention to the fact that the counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rohan Thawani, was present before the Company Law Board not only on 3.9.2007 but also before the Hon'ble High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the petitioner on the same day in view of the fact that Shri Rohan Thawani, Counsel for the petitioner, was present before the High Court on the date of such order and represented the petitioner from the very beginning till date. Since no appeal was preferred by the Petitioner against the order dated 26.7.2012, the date when he received a certified copy of the said order looses significance. Therefore, in any case, the exercise of option on 16.8.2012 by the petitioner, Dr, Raj Kachroo, was beyond the period of 15 days contemplated by the order dated 3.9.2007. Therefore, It must be held that the petitioner, having failed to exercise the option within 15 days from the date of the order dated 3.9.2007 and in the worst case scenario from 26. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
