9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against impugned order dated 26th October, 2017 passed under Sections 397, 398, 402, 403, and 237 of the Companies Act, 1956 by the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. The Tribunal equally divided the share between the two shareholders. The Appellants have sought following reliefs: a) To set aside the order dated 26.10.2017 in C.P No. 40/2011 (TP No. 50/HDB/2016) passed by the Hon'ble NCLT, Hyderabad Bench as illegal and bad in law and pass such other or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. b) To suspend/stay the order dated 26.10.2017 in C.P No. 40/2011 (TP No. 50/HDB/2016) passed by the Hon'ble NCLT, Hyderabad Bench pending disposal of the appeal supra. 2. The Appellants submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant No. 2 introduced reforms in the company by which all the documents signed by the Respondent were required to be jointly signed by Appellant. There by taking away the absolute freedom and access enjoyed by the Respondent. 4. The grievance of the Appellant is that the Respondent have fictitiously used the transfer agreement dated 08.04.2010 to claim 50% stake in the company. The Appellant further submits that NCLT proceeded to declare the fictitious agreement dated 08.04.2010 as valid without any ruling on maintainability issues and despite the agreement being under challenge in Civil Suit, gives a ruling contrary to the pleadings, different from prayer directing 50 : 50 share ratio without considering that the Authenticity of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to reply to the notice given and instead filed a Writ in High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. The Respondent also submits that they only filed 'ex-parte docket orders' dated 7th May, 2014 obtained from a Vacation Court in O.S. No. 605 of 2014 and not the subsequent detailed order final orders and that the Selective filing of 'ex-parte docket orders' and suppressing the final orders from the knowledge of this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal is an attempt to willfully mislead this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal. The Respondent also submits that the criminal charges filed by the Appellant against the Respondent is dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. Shareholding pattern of the Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed against the Appellant by the Respondent on violation of the said order. The Appellant has further without making any effort to settle the issue and without taking permission of the Tribunal has taken several actions including transfer of shares, removal of the 1st Respondent as Director of the company etc. When the CLB passed an order, the Appellant company is not supposed to take any action adversely affecting the interests of the Respondents. Therefore, action taken by the Appellant, contrary to said interim orders are declared illegal. 10. The Respondent has rightly submitted that in anticipation of amicable settlement of the issue, he has performed his obligation under the proposed settlement i.e. by transferring the shares, agr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
