9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling outside the jurisdiction of this Bench - In order to explain the factual aspects, the applicant/ petitioner has made a reference to the third entity, i.e., TPCPL, which appears to be plausible. Another objection has been raised by the respondents/respondents in their reply that the applicant/petitioner has approached this Bench for purely directorial dispute and no case of oppression is made out. In this connection, it has been submitted by the applicant/petitioner that the charges framed against the applicant/petitioner are malicious, without valid reasons, and alleged grounds relating to his removal, are false. In such circumstances, the acts of the respondents/respondents amount to oppression. There appears force in the submissions of the applicant/petitioner. The factors indicated by the hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, while deciding the case of Cyrus Investments P. Ltd. v. Tata Sons Ltd. [2017 (9) TMI 1500 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI], are satisfied by the applicant/petitioner - application allowed - the registry is directed to register the petition and list. - C. A. No. 121 of 2017. - - - Dated:- 14-3-2018 - Ch. Mohd. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also on record that the applicant/petitioner has filed a revised affidavit by making a reference to the earlier order passed by this Bench and the hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, and has submitted some documents in order to support his application for seeking waiver of the requirements as has been mentioned hereinabove. 5. The first respondent-company has filed a common counter statement on its behalf and on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 to 7 denying all the allegations made in the application as well as in the proposed company petition to be filed under section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013. The answering respondents/respondents have specifically stated that the applicant/petitioner has not made out any case for oppression and mismanagement or shown exceptional reasons for grant of waiver of requirements stipulated in section 244(1)(a) and prayed that the application be dismissed. 6. It has been averred in the reply that the applicant/petitioner ought to have filed the present application as per the format prescribed in rule 83A of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 in Form NCLT-9, at the time of filing the application for seeking the waiver o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondents/respondents that the applicant/petitioner has been removed as a director at the extraordinary general meeting held on July 15, 2017 after following due process. 9. The answering respondents have also averred in the common counter that the applicant/petitioner has approached this Bench for purely directorial dispute and no case of oppression has been made out, and the applicant/petitioner has come with unclean hands. Having stated as above, the respondents/respondents prayed to dismiss the application filed for seeking waiver of requirements of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013. 10. The applicant/petitioner has filed rejoinder wherein he has denied all the allegations levelled by the answering respondents. The applicant/petitioner in his rejoinder has submitted that it is true that the application originally filed before this Bench on July 12, 2017 was filed in Form NCLT1 instead of the format prescribed under rule 83A of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules (in Form NCLT-9) and in order to remove the procedural defects in filing the said application, the revised application has been filed which is not introducing new pleadin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transhipment charges to the applicant/petitioner. The arguments of the respondents are two in fold ; first, that the revised application filed by the applicant/petitioner cannot be taken on record without the leave of the court, and the second issue raised is that the pleadings as contained in the application and the proposed petition are pertaining to a third company with respect to which the applicant/ petitioner has already filed C. P. No. 355 of 2017 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Bombay, and based on the allegations against third company, i.e., TPCPL, the applicant/petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Bench under sections 241 and 242 read with section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013. 15. It is an admitted fact that the respondents have raised the issue that the original application was filed in Form NCLT-I, instead of the format prescribed under rule 83A of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules (Form NCLT-9). The revised application has been filed by making compliance with the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, the content of which are substantially the same, no new cause of action has been pleaded therein. The second objection raised is about the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
