9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstant Appeal is filed against the 'impugned order dated 21.02.2020' passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench in CP No.124/2020 whereby and whereunder an 'Ex parte interim relief' to and in favour of the Respondent was granted in directing the Appellant to maintain Status Quo in relation to the 'shareholding pattern' as well as in relation to the 'properties of the 1st Respondent Company' without even considering whether the petition filed by the Respondent is maintainable or whether the Respondent is eligible to file a petition under Sections 241, 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 especially in the absence of waiver under Section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013. The prime plea taken on behalf of the Appellant is that the 'Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the shareholding pattern as well as in relation to the properties of the 1st Respondent Company relies on the judgement of this Appellant Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) No. 112/2019 dated 27.9.2019 in the matter of Mantena Raju Narasu Vs M/s Lexus Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Wherein at paras 5 to 7 it is observed as under:- 5. It is stated that the other Respondents have also appeared in the matter. The impugned order shows that while passing the order, the NCLT had heard Respondent Nos.4, 7, 8 and 9. As it is stated that the present Appellant and other Respondents have also appeared in the Company Petition, it appears to us appropriate in the interest of justice that the Appellant and other Respondents, who were not heard when the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsels appearing for the respective parties and noticed their contentions. There is no two opinion of a primordial fact that no waiver application as per Section 244 (1)(b) was filed before the 'Tribunal' (National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench, in main Company Petition) by the Respondent/Petitioner/Applicant. On behalf of the Appellant, reliance is placed on the judgement of this 'Tribunal' in 'Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs Tata Sons Ltd & Ors' 2017 SCC OnLine NCLAT 261 wherein it is observed and held as under:- "150.The Tribunal is not required to decide merit of (proposed) application under Section 241, but required to record grounds to suggest that the applicants have made out some exception case for waiver of all or of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mony to this fact. In short the contention of the Respondent/Petitioner is that the main Company Petition No.CP/124/2020 before the Tribunal is nothing but a composite petition, projected under Sections 59, 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 and that he is eligible and entitled to file the said Petition. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Petitioner has relied on the following decisions :- 1. Manoj Kumar Kanuga & Ors Vs Mandhar Power Pvt Ltd & Others CDI 2013 APHC 092. 2. Dr. Renuka Datla and Others Vs M/s Biological I Ltd & Ors -CDI 2017 APHC674 3. Shashi Prakash Khemka (Dead) through LRs and Another Vs NEPC Micon (now called NEPC India Ltd & Anr, CDI 2019 SC 052. Taking note of the divergent contentions advanced by the Lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
