9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f law or justice. This Court is unable to come to the aid of the petitioner - Petition dismissed. - CRP.No.34 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.176 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 7-1-2020 - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN AND HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALTHA For Petitioners: Mrs. V. Bagyalakshmi For Respondents: Mr. Adeesh Anto for R1 R3 M/s.Lulu Marian for R2 Mr. S.V. Pravin Rathinam (No appearance) for R4 R5 ORDER [M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J.,] The petitioners filed Company Petition No.20/2018 on the file of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chennai under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 and it is relevant to extract the relief sought for by the petitioners in the said petition: B: Final Relief: In view of the facts mentioned above, the petitioners respectfully and humbly pray for the following reliefs: (i) The petitioners humbly pray that this Hon'ble NCLT may be pleased to declare that the acts of the respondents 2 to 5 are oppressive and prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners and the 1st respondent Company. (ii) The petitioners humbly pray that this Hon&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by this Honourable Tribunal. 2. To pass a direction that the Board of Directors shall have representation in proportion to the equity shareholding of the petitioners with 47.68% and the respondents with 47.82%. 3. To extend the time for subscription to the rights issue dated 01.11.2019 by a period of 30 days for infusion of entire shortfall of funds ₹ 6.5 Cr. 4. Or any other order or orders as this Honourable Tribunal deems fit in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. 4. The NCLT, vide order dated 14.10.2019, has granted liberty to the 1st respondent Company to raise debt and equity in accordance with law subject to infusion to funds over 4 % of disputed shareholding by keeping it in abeyance and also to hold Board Meetings with a clarification that this order will supersede the orders dated 26.04.2018 and 19.11.2018 and also recorded the consensus arrived between the parties. 5. The grievance expressed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that despite such a direction, the 2nd respondent with a malafide intention and in order to misappropriate the major shareholding belong to the petitioner Company, illegally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order dated 21.12.2018 in C.R.P.Nos.3278, 4028, 4029 and 4065 of 2017 (Infonet Asia Private Limited Vs. Autocap India Private Limited) and would submit that in similar facts and circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition were numbered and however, the Division Bench of this Court having noted that there is an alternative remedy in the form of appeal, has dismissed the Civil Revision Petition as not maintainable and in the light of the fact that the respondents had committed fraud by not complying with the impugned order passed by the NCLT dated 14.10.2019 in I.A.No.421/2019 in C.P.No.20/2018, the petitioners are left with no other option, except to approach this Court. 7. This Court has carefully considered the rival submission and also perused the materials placed before it. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Jai Singh and others (2010 (9) SCC 385) has considered the nature and scope of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and it is relevant to extract paragraph no.15: The High Court, under Article 227 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In so far as insolvency resolution of corporate debtors and personal guarantors are concerned, any order passed by the NCLT is appealable to NCLAT under Section 61 of the IBC, 2016 and the orders of the NCLAT are amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of this court under Section 62. It is in this context that the action of the State of Karnataka in by-passing the remedy of appeal to NCLAT and the act of the High Court in entertaining the writ petition against the order of the NCLT are being questioned. 15. One of the well recognized exceptions to the self-imposed restraint of the High Courts, in cases where a statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available, is the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the statutory/quasi-judicial authority, against whose order a judicial review is sought. Traditionally, English courts maintained a distinction between cases where a statutory/quasi-judicial authority exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it in law and cases where there was a wrongful exercise of the available jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction was always distinguished from in excess of jurisdiction , until the advent of the decision rendered by the House of Lords, by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
