9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants submits that the Appellants have projected the instant Company Appeal (AT) No. 60 of 2020 as against Order dated 14.02.2020 in C.A. 83/2020 in CP 94/241-242 (ND) 2019 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Bench III whereby and whereunder at Paragraph 9, 15, 16 and 19 it is observed as follows: "The Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 1 & 2 has further referred to CP-94 of 2019 and submitted that 7 Acres land purchased under Sale Deed No. 3453 was the part of the JDCA Project land, however, subsequently, and Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred as "MoU") dated 13.09.2008 was signed by 12 parties, by which, the project land under Agreement dated 29.08.2006 was revised and 7 acres of land did not form part o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MoU. Otherwise also there is nothing on record to suggest as to why Vipul Group and Karamchand Realtech Private Limited are entitled to take away 7 Acres of land first Respondent Company without paying any consideration there for. From the perusal of the record, it is an admitted factual position that 7 acres of land was registered in the name of the first Respondent Company vide Sale Deed No. 3543 dated 12.05.2006, with regard to which a Resolution has been passed by the Board of Directors of first Respondent on 13.04.2019 giving authority to Vipul Group and Karamchand Realtech Private Limited to deal with the land in any manner. The Board resolution is under challenge and the transaction is pertaining to the related party, which prima-f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Tribunal that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9400 of 2019 Solitaire Capital India & Ors. Vs. Vipul Sez Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. on 09.01.2020 at Paragraph 2 to 4 had observed the following and resultantly disposed of the Appeal: "The Appeal is outcome of an interim order passed by the NCLT which has been dealt with by the NCLAT in the Impugned Order. As the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is pending before the NCLT, we request the NCLT to decide the same finally, as agreed to by the Learned Counsel for the parties, within a period of ten days. No further order is required to be passed at this stage. In case any order is passed, it is open to the parties to take steps in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;ble Supreme Court had requested the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench III to decide the Section 8 application filed under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 within a period of ten days. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the Interim Order passed on 17.12.2019 shall continue to operate for a period of ten days from 09.01.2020. 6. The primordial grievance of the Appellants is that besides the Appellants having been aggrieved against the Impugned Order dated 14.02.2020, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench III, the Tribunal had not disposed of the Section 8 application baring no. CA 422 of 2019 pending on its file and instead passed the Impugned Order. It also comes to the notice o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
