9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or arithmetical mistake occurred in the order. On the other hand she is asking for review of the order as if this Tribunal ought to have granted relief in her favour that she is entitled for the dividends declared on the allotment of shares in connection with three rights issue. So it is apparent that Tribunal by order dated 14.03.2017 had not committed any clerical or arithmetic error but the case of Applicant that Tribunal ought to have granted a relief of her entitlement to the dividends basing on the reliefs prayed by her. The learned Counsel for Respondent; rightly pointed that the order of this Tribunal stands merged with the order of Hon ble NCLAT as order of this Tribunal was questioned before Hon'ble NCLAT and it was confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in TP No.94/HDB/2016. The averments in her application in brief that she had filed CP No. 13/202013. The copy of the Company Petition is shown as Annexure-I .1t was filed in Company law Board (CLB) Chennai. She alleged she prayed in her petition to grant the following reliefs:- (i) Direct the Respondent to, either allot or transfer, such number of shares so as to entitle the Petitioner to maintain her percentage shareholding at 3.12% (which was the percentage shareholding she held at the time of deletion of her name as shareholder of the Company illegally in the year 1999), upon the receipt of the amount of Rs. from the Petitioner, being the consideration payable in respect of the said shares as per the terms of the respective r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to the proceedings connected with CP No. 7 of 2000 and all further appeals up to Hon'ble Supreme Court in connection therewith and the cost due to the acts of misconduct of Respondent 2 3, etc. 3. The said Company Petition was transferred to this Tribunal and it was renumbered as TP 97/HDB/2016. It is the case of Applicant that this Tribunal disposed off said Petition by an order dated 14.03.2017 granting following reliefs:- (1) The Respondents to allot all the three rights issue shares comprising a total of 5250 shares i.e. 350 shares in 1991-92, 2100 shares in 1995-96 and 2800 shares in 2004-05 respectively to the Petitioner. (2) The Petitioners to pay the amount of ₹ 13,65,000/- by way of demand d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons. It is not the case of the Applicant that there is any clerical or arithmetical error or mistake in the order. She, on the other hand is seeking additional relief which was not granted by the Tribunal. This Tribunal only granted some reliefs to the Applicant after considering the various aspects of the legal contentions of the parties. It is also stated that Section 420(2) of Companies Act, 2013 prohibits the Tribunal from making any amendment in respect of any order against which an Appeal is preferred. 7. It is the case of Respondents that aggrieved by order of this Tribunal they preferred appeal bearing Appeal No. (AT) 95/2017 to Hon'ble NCLAT, New Delhi and the appeal preferred by Respondents was dismissed. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal ought to have granted a relief of her entitlement to the dividends basing on the reliefs prayed by her. She stated that this Tribunal in the order has observed that Respondents have committed mismanagement etc, and therefore Tribunal should have allowed the relief prayed by her for payment of dividends. 11. The Applicant cannot seek such a relief on the ground it is a clerical or arithmetical error. If any relief is not granted. As rightly pointed out by Counsel for Respondents, the proper course open to the Applicant is to prefer appeal. However, no appeal was preferred by the Applicant. When no appeal is preferred then order binds on the parties to the Petition. 12. However, it is the case of Respondents that they pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
