9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1, 4, 15, 24, 25, if the respondents have violated the interim orders passed by this Tribunal on 4.11.2019 and 6.1.2020, the only remedy available to the applicants is to initiate contempt proceedings against the erring respondents. The application is not maintainable. - IA No. 156/KOB/2020 In CP/113/KOB/2019 - - - Dated:- 27-11-2020 - Hon ble Mr. Ashok Kumar Borah, Member (Judicial) For the Applicants : Shri Srikanth Mohan, PCS For the Respondents : Mr.Poulose C.Abraham (R 1,4,15,24 25) Mr. Yogindunath, PCS (2,5-14,16,18-20,23 26) ORDER This IA/156/KOB/2020 has been filed by the Petitioner in the CP/113/KOB/2019 under Rule 32 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 for the following relief:- That this Hon ble Tribunal may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to 1st Respondent Company, ie. BRD Motors Ltd in which the petitioners are shareholders. The restrictions imposed vide our order dated 4.11.2019 are not applicable with respect to transfer of shares of the 24th Respondent - M/s. SML Finance Ltd. and / or with respect to alienation, transfer, lien, lease, etc. of the moveable/immoveable properties of the 24th Respondent Company, in which the Respondents/Petitioners do not have any shareholding. However, the related party transactions, if any, between R1 and R24 are subject to our Orders in the main Company Petition CP/113/KOB/2019. . 4. The learned PCS for the Applicants submitted that from the above quoted orders, it is clear that this Tribunal passed an Interim Order directing the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the three group companies at large by mailing the notice through ordinary post. It is also submitted that the Respondents have made a ridicule of the Interim Order of this Tribunal directing inter alia, status quo to be maintained as regards to the shareholding pattern of 1st Respondent Company. 6. The Applicants further stated that the aforementioned letter received from BRD group is from Respondent No. 4, revealing his relationship as Co-ordinator . Mr. C.C. William Varghese, the self-proclaimed Co-ordinator is in fact the director of Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 4 in the Petition. Respondent No. 4 has been the Organizer of all the doubtful activities alleged in the Petition. There is an ambiguity on the role of Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emselves decide on the price of the share, without adhering to any of the applicable laws in the country. In the said letter to the shareholders also, they have ostensibly reiterated the proposition of a parallel stock exchange and have confirmed that the intended restructuring is for ensuring creating of a platform for sale/purchase or trading in shares of the Company by the shareholders. 8. The Applicant further stated that the Consultant for the whole activities is Respondent No. 13, a Practising Company Secretary, who is supposed to have knowledge of law, has understandably advised and guided Respondent No. 4 to act against the Interim Order of this Tribunal. The said letter to the shareholders states that for any further details t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icata. 12. I have meticulously heard the learned PCS/counsel for all the parties and had gone through the Interim Orders dated 04.11.2019 and 06.01.2020. In this respect, I would like to discuss the powers of this Tribunal under Section 425 of the Companies Act, which reads: - Section 425. Power to punish for contempt The Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall have the same jurisdiction, powers and authority in respect of contempt of themselves as the High Court has and may exercise, for this purpose, the powers under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which shall have the effect subject to modifications that- (a) the reference therein to a High Court shall be construed as including a reference to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
