9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irectors from R4. Those disputes cannot be raised in the present Company Petition and also do not form any valid ground for rejecting the instant Application for withdrawal of main Company Petition. It is the statutory duty imposed on Tribunal to ensure that the Tribunal puts an end to the Litigation by passing appropriate orders, considering the facts and circumstances of the Case. In the instant case, it is the main litigating parties who have put an end to the disputes among themselves and have come before the Tribunal praying to permit the withdrawal of the Company Petition which would ultimately result in putting an end to the Litigation between the parties - Application allowed. - IA No. 345 of 2019 in CP No. 148/241/HDB/2018 - - - Dated:- 24-5-2019 - K. Anantha Padmanabha Swamy , Member ( J ) For the Appellant : L. Ravichander, Senior Counsel, Lomesh Kiran and Prahastha M, Advocates For the Respondents : Raghunandan Rao, Senior Counsel, K. Prateek Reddy, K. Vivek Reddy, Advocates, P. Ravi Prasad, Advocate, Sitaram Murthy, Senior Counsel, D.V.A.S, Ravi Prasad, Advocate, J.K Raju, J. Teja Verma, Advocate, P. Ravi Prasad and Srutha Keerthi, Advocate ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of hearing in IA No. 345/2019, the prayer in which was to permit the Petitioner to withdraw the main Company Petition. Upon hearing the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel and on being satisfied by the reasons stated for advancement, this Tribunal directed the registry to put IA No. 345/2019 along with all the connected Applications on 10.05.2019. 6. During the hearing held on 10.05.2019, IA No. 345/2019 was taken up. This Tribunal directed all the counsels representing Respondents in IA No. 345/2019 and Applicant in IA No. 312/2019 to file their submissions, if any, by way of reply and the matter was posted to 13.05.2019. 7. During the hearing held on 13.05.2019, Counsel for Petitioner filed written submissions and Counsel for R1 Company filed its written submissions and the same were adopted by R2, R3 R6. Counsel for R4 (Mr. D.V.A.S Ravi Prasad) filed written submissions. Counsel for R5 also filed its written submissions. There was no representation on behalf of the Applicant in IA No. 312/2019 and he was directed to file reply submission, if any on or before 17.05.2019 and the matter was posted to 17.05.2019. 8. IA No. 345/2019 was taken up for hearing on 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its written submissions inter-alia submitted the following: i. That the Petition alleging Oppression and Mismanagement is only against Respondent No. 1 Company. ii. That the Petitioner has an absolute and unconditional right to ask for an unconditional withdrawal. iii. That the Petitioner cannot be compelled to proceed with the Petition when it wants to withdraw the same. iv. That the objections of Respondent No. 5 against withdrawal of the Petition are untenable. v. That the third party Applicant is not a party to the present Petition. vi. In support of the above submissions, the Respondent No. 1 has placed reliance on the following judgements: a) VLS Finance vs. Southend Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (CA (AT) No. 370 of 2017). b) Hulas Rai Baij Nath Vs. Firm KB. Bass Co. ( (1967) 3 SCR 886). c) Anil Kumar Singh vs. Vijay Pal Singh ( (2018) 12 SCC 584). d) Baligar Sahamulia vs. Baligara Fakruddin Sab, ((2005) 10 SCC 214) e) Bijayananda Patanaik vs. Satrughna Sahu Ors. ((1964) 2 SCR 538) f) S.K Hussain vs. M.G. Kannaiah ( (1981) 3 SCC 71) g) Jal Mahal Resorts (P) Ltd vs. KP. Sharma ((2014) 8 SCC 866). 11. Counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Natural Justice. 14. Heard both the sides and perused the record. 15. It is a settled position of Law that when a Petitioner seeks for a withdrawal simpliciter, the Tribunal will not continue with the said Petition and in order to put an end to the matters complained of it would be in the interest of all the parties involved that such withdrawal simpliciter be allowed. 16. It is also pertinent to note that the main Company Petition has been filed citing various acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of R1 Company. However, both the Petitioner and R1 have entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 27.04.2019 and have put to rest all their differences. 17. On perusal of the written submission of all the parties, this Tribunal has observed that none of the parties except R5 has raised any objection for withdrawal. The objections raised by R5 mostly revolve around the internal disputes in R4 Company relating to the acts of Alanda media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd and four others in taking over R4 Company and removal of R5 other directors from R4. I am of the considered view that those disputes cannot be raised in the present Company Petition and also do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
