9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Company Petition is hereby rejected. - IA No. 08 of 2020 in CP No. 14/241/242/GB/2019 - - - Dated:- 23-11-2021 - Hari Venkata Subba Rao, Member (J) And Prasanta Kumar Mohanty, Member (T) For the Appellant : S. Sancheti, Advocate For the Respondents : B. Choudhury, Advocate ORDER Hari Venkata Subba Rao, Member (J) 1. The present Application is filed by Mr. Tushar Kanti Roy under Rule 32 of NCLT Rules, 2016 seeking the following relief/s: I. That the applicant be impleaded as a proforma respondent in the Company petition No. 14/241/242/GB/2019 as no direct allegation has been posed against the applicant in the instant company petition and to defend his rights and position as a Director/Shareholder of the hotel. II. The applicant also prays that the interim relief granted to the petitioner vide order dated 24.10.2019 by this Hon'ble Tribunal is to be set aside and the same may be considered after incorporation/impleading the applicant as a Director/Shareholder of the company. III. Tribunal may direct the Respondent 2 and 3 to resume the payment of ₹ 25,000/- to the applicant for services rendered to respondent no. 1 Hotel, as D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant for being one of the Directors of M/s. Hotel Indira Pvt. Ltd. It is further submitted that the Applicant has communicated the same to Mr. Curfew Roy - Respondent No. 2 in the Company Petition vide letter dated 30.12.2019 regarding non-payment of the remuneration of ₹ 25,000.00 to the Applicant for being a Director of the Hotel. 4. It is further stated that, the Applicant, after the death of his mother, Late Mrs. Sunity Roy in the year 2013, was not happy with the manner in which the affairs of the Hotel was being run/supervised/managed especially by the Respondents No. 2 and 3. As such, the Applicant opposed to his brothers, the division of the land property on which the Respondent No. 1 Hotel stood and accordingly claimed 1/6th part in the land on which the Hotel is situated. It is further stated that though the Hotel is situated on this particular plot of land measuring 1 katha, 2 and 2/1 lechas covered by Dag No. 520 and 521 of K.P. Patta No. 261 of village Sahar Guwahati, Part-5, Mouza Ulubari, the land is not owned by M/s. Hotel Indira Pvt. Ltd. but belongs to the heirs of Late Brojendra Kumar Roy and in the absence of any will or agreement on the basis of which t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejudice will be caused to the Applicant if he is not allowed to be made a party in this instant Company Petition No. 14/241/242/GB/2019. The Petitioners have not only misled the Hon'ble Tribunal into believing that, all interested parties/members/Directors/Shareholders of the Respondent No. 1 Company are made a party to this Petition. In no way, can the Petitioners, Proforma Respondents should have missed out the Applicant, from making him, a party in the Company Petition. In case the Petitioner claims that the Applicant is no longer a Director of the Respondent No. 1 Company, it seems fit to submit before this Hon'ble Tribunal, a copy of the Written Statement filed by the Defendants in Title Suit No. 252 of 2015. Further, the Applicant has been receiving his remuneration for being a Director, even since the inception of the Hotel on an irregular basis. As such the Applicant was never of the belief that he is not a Director of the Hotel. It has come to light that a FORM-32 filed by Mr. Pronoy Kumar Roy as a Director of the Hotel in the year 2005 in reference to the resignation of the Applicant - Tushar Kanti Roy is available on the MCA website but the same is not genuine a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2016 - filed by the Applicant - Mr. Tushar Kanti Roy, have also filed their Written Objections submitting therein as under:- 11.i The Application filed by the Applicant has at Para-6 of the Application misrepresented that he is a Director in the Respondent No. 1 Company. The said contention of the Applicant is completely false as the Applicant had ceased to be a Director in the Respondent No. 1 Company way back in the year 2005. (Form 32 at pg. 51 and 52 of the Application). That being the position, the Applicant is guilty of approaching this Hon'ble Tribunal with unclean hands and as such, the Application filed by the Applicant merits dismissal at the threshold by this Hon'ble Tribunal. 11.ii It is stated by the Respondent here that it is a settled position of law that a Party seeking impleadment must mandatorily establish he is a proper or a necessary party. The status of the Applicant in the Respondent No. 1 Company is only that of a Share Holder and for the adjudication of grievances raised by the Petitioners in the Company Petition, the Applicant is neither a proper nor a necessary party. The same being the unassailable position, the Application filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
