9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Appellants. Mr. Yogesh Raavi, with Mr. Alok Dhir, Ms Versha Banerjee, Mr. Kunai Godwani and Mr Milan Singh Negi, Advocates for the Respondent. ORDER This appeal has been preferred by appellant, Brahmani Infratech Pvt Ltd Ors, against the order dated 31.1.2017 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for short) in Company Petition No.42/2011. By the impugned judgement, while the Tribunal answered the oppression and mismanagement in favour of appellant and held that the company petition was maintainable only with respect to the 1st respondent and 2nd respondent has no locus standi to join in his individual capacity to file the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the company. The order dated 23.03.2017 passed in Company Appeal (AT) No.78/2017 reads as follows: In this appeal, by impugned order dated 31st January 2017 in C.P.No. 42 of 2017, the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') held that the C.P. No. 42 of 2017 is maintainable only with respect to 1st petitioner - Mahalaxmi Infra Ventures (India) Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 21st March 2011 and in regard to the 2nd petitioner (2nd appellant herein) the said Company Petition is not maintainable. After some arguments, learned counsel for the appellants sought permission to withdraw the appeal to enable the appellants to file a fresh Company Petition under section 241 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the order of the Appellate tribunal. The appeal stands disposed of as withdrawn and with the aforesaid observations. In view of the fact that the Tribunal has held that the company petition in regard to 2nd respondent was not maintainable as affirmed by this Appellate Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) No. 78/2017, we hold that the Tribunal was not justified in directing the appellant company to reinstate the 2nd respondent as Director of the company. For the reasons aforesaid the impugned judgment in so far the direction contained in Clause 4(iv), which reads as follows, is set aside:- iv) The Respondent No. I Company is directed to appoint the second petition as Director of Respondent No. I company in acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
