9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate, Mr. Swapnil Gupta, Mr Rudrajit Ghosh, Ms. Diksha Gupta, Mr Kauser Hussain, Advocates, Mr.Saurabh Jain with Mr. Smarth, Mr. Bhavishya Singh, Advocates, Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Swapnil Gupta, Mr Rudrajit Ghosh, Ms. Diksha Gupta, Mr Kauser Hussain, Advocates JUDGMENT DR. ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA, TECHNICAL MEMBER 1. The Present set of Appeals are preferred under section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 against a common impugned order dated 02.08.2019 of the National Company Law Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, Dated 2nd August 2019 passed in CP No. 574/241/HBD/2018 and are accordingly disposed of through this common judgment. The National Company Law Tribunal in C.P. No. 574/241/HDB/2018 has passed the order covering alleged impugned Board Resolution of Board Meeting dated 01st August, 2015 as well as registration of document for land measuring 9 Acres 18 Guntas with the Sub-Registrar as specified in the petition as null and void. Direction has also been given to Sub-Registrar to cancel the impugned registered document dated 04th September, 2015 directing them to restore the name of impugned property in the name of M/s J&A Avenues India Private Limited and has also directe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, the Appellant is Mr. V. Lakshmi Chenchu Venkata Siva Prasad Satya and Respondent No.1 is M/s J&A Avenues India Private Limited. Respondent No.2 is Mrs. Vishnumolaka Govardhanamma and Respondent No.3 is Elaine Info Solutions Private Limited and Respondent No.4 is Sub-Registrar Sangareddy (R.O.). Hereinafter in this judgment Elaine Info Solutions Private Limited is referred to as Appellant and M/s J&A Avenues India Private Limited as Respondent No.1 Company, Mrs. Vishnumolaka Govardhanamma as Respondent No.2 and Mr. V. Lakshmi Chenuchu Venkata Siva Prasad Satya as Respondent No.3. Respondent No.4 is Sub-Registrar Sangareddy (R.O.) who is unrepresented in these Appeals. 3. Accordingly, the order is disposed of though common judgment and Appellants and Respondents are defined as given above in order to have clarity in reading the judgment. 4. The Appellant submits that the Respondent No.3 [Appellant in C.A. No. 246 of 2019 hereinafter referred to as Respondent No.3] approached the Appellant for the purpose of selling a part of Respondent No.1 Company's Property admeasuring Acres 9-18 Guntas ("Subject Property"), and the Appellant purchased the same for consideration of Rs. 4,3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. The Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No.2 herein have also preferred the Company Appeal No. 258 of 2019 to a limited extent i.e. to set aside the impugned order to an extent that vide order dt. 02.08.2019 the Respondent No.1 Company herein is directed to return an amount of Rs. 4,36,50,000/- along with interest @ 8% to the Appellant. The amount of 7,91,00,000/- is also directed to be returned to Mr. Y Naga Satish with interest @ 8% per annum by Respondent no.1 Company and Respondent No.3 from the date of receipt of the said amount. The Respondent no.2 further submits that as per the direction vide order dated 02.08.2019, the illegal sale deed NO. 15747 of 2015 dated 04.09.2015 was cancelled on 07.08.2019 and Respondent No.3 was removed as the director of the Respondent No.1 Company and Ms. Degala Raja Rajeshwari has been appointed as the director of the Respondent No.1 Company. 7. It is submitted that Respondent No.3 in collision with the Director of Appellant has transferred a part of the land admeasuring Acres 9-28 Guntas (however in the impugned order dated 02.08.2019 the same was mentioned as Acres 9-18 guntas due to typographical error) to Appellant vide illegal sale deed N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led by the fraud of any such person as aforesaid; or (c) the suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; or (d) where any document necessary to establish the right of the plaintiff or applicant has been fraudulently concealed from him, the period of limitation shall not begin to run until plaintiff or applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it; or in the case of a concealed document, until the plaintiff or the applicant first had the means of producing the concealed document or compelling its production: Provided that nothing in this section shall enable any suit to be instituted or application to be made to recover or enforce any charge against, or set aside any transaction affecting, any property which- (i) in the case of fraud, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the fraud and did not at the time of the purchase know, or have reason to believe, that any fraud had been committed, or (ii) in the case of mistake, has been purchased for valuable consideration subsequently to the transaction in which the mistake was made, by a person who did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
