9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd CA/101/2011 which is interconnected with CA/32/2010. Hence the prayer as sought for in (b) stands rejected. The Applicant ought not to have filed the present Application before this Tribunal seeking similar relief. It seems like the Applicant is indulging in forum shopping and also filing multiple applications before different fora seeking similar relief and such a practice is required to be deprecated. Further, the moratorium imposed by the NCLAT vide its order dated 15.10.2018 is still in vogue and the Applicant who is well aware of the said order passed by the Hon'ble NCLAT has preferred to file application seeking relief as against the 5th Respondent. In all respects the Application filed by the Applicant deserves to be dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case are that the CP/18/2007 was initiated due to certain disputes which arose between the shareholders of the Applicants herein viz. AIDQUA Holdings Mauritius Inc., on one side and IL FS, Tamil Nadu Water Investment Corporation Ltd., (TWICL) and Tirupur Infrastructure Development Corporate Ltd. (TIDCL) on the other. The grievance of IL FS was that AIDQUA and its Nominee Director was abusing the veto power in terms of Article 196 and 197 which resulted in oppression of their rights as shareholders and mismanagement of NTADCL, the Applicant herein. 4. Thereafter, the shareholder of AIDQUA filed CA/32/2010, wherein the deduction of certain costs while disbursing loans routed through IL FS to NTADCL was questioned and challenged. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order; Shri R Parthsarathy, counsel for petitioners present. Shri P Dwarkesh counsel for Rl and Shri P Giridharan, counsel for R3 present. No representation on behalf of R2. The counsel for the petitioner had drawn attention to 37 CAs filed in TCP/12/2016 before this bench and stated that some of them have already been disposed of. He insisted on hearing CA/32/2010 and CA/1/2013. The counsel for the respondents has raised objection that the matter is sub judice before the Honourable Supreme Court which relates to CDR and other connected issues and the matter was part-heard by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and another order dated 16.09.2016 has also been passed in IA/11/2016 in petition No. 11694 of 2014 wherein the Supreme Court has o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the nature of the case, larger public interest and economy of the nation and interest of the Company and 348 group companies, there shall be stay of (i) The institution or continuation of suits or any other proceedings by any party or person or Bank or Company, etc. against 'IL FS' and its 348 group companies in any Court of Law/Tribunal/Arbitration Panel or Arbitration Authority; and (ii) Any action by any party or person or Bank or Company, etc. to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created over the assets of 'IL FS' and its 348 group companies including any action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; (iii) The accel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, that the Applicant has filed a similar Application before the Mumbai Bench of NCLT seeking similar relief as to prayer (a) is concerned. Further, the said Application is numbered as Appl. No. 511 of 2020 and the same is pending adjudication before the file of the NCLT, Mumbai Bench. Under such circumstances, the Applicant ought not to have filed the present Application before this Tribunal seeking similar relief. It seems like the Applicant is indulging in forum shopping and also filing multiple applications before different fora seeking similar relief and such a practice is required to be deprecated. Further, the moratorium imposed by the NCLAT vide its order dated 15.10.2018 is still in vogue and the Applicant who is well aware of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
