9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d before the Tribunal (National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench, in main Company Petition) by the Respondent/Petitioner/Applicant. Taking note of the divergent contentions advanced by the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, in view of the fact that the plea of maintainability of the petition going to the root of the matter is raised on behalf of the Appellant and the same is repelled/repudiated on the side of the Respondent and added further, that the plea of waiver as visualised under the Companies Act, 2013, in the absence of application being filed by the Respondent before the Tribunal is projected before this Appellate Tribunal , at this stage, this Tribunal, simpliciter, without traversing upon the merits of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intain 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 Tribunal had passed the impugned order dated 21.02.2020 in negation of the principles of natural justice as against the well settled the principle of law and judicial precedent. Advancing his argument, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant comes out with a plea that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 impugned order was passed, should be heard by NCLT to appreciate the grievances of the Appellant and other Respondents, who were not heard. 6. We dispose the present Appeal with the following directions: - (i) The matter is remitted back to NCLT at Amarava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench, 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 any of the requirements specified in clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of Section 244. Such opinion required to be formed on the basis of the (proposed) application under Section 241 and to form opinion whether allegation pertains to oppr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anies 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 Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, in view of the fact that the plea of maintainability of the petition going to the root of the matter is raised on behalf of the Appellant and the same is repelled/repudiated on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
