9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 2:00 P.M under the heading 'For Hearing'. - Company Appeal (AT) Nos. 106 and 113 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 6-12-2021 - Anant Bijay Singh, J. Member (J) and Shreesha Merla, Member (T) For the Appellant: Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate, Pawan Sharma, Sidharth Aggarwal, Anuj Shah, Divya Bhalla, Vivek Reddy, Sr. Advocate, Shravya Reddy, Bheemachaya, Abhijeet Sinha, Suman Jyoti Khaitan, Sameer Sagar and Shruti Gupta For the Respondent: Zain A. Khan, Kumar Anurag Singh, Sanjan Poovayya, Sr. Advocate, Ashish Aggarwal, Gurcharan Singh, Sharan Balakrishnan, Raksha Agrawal, Gurkamal Hora and Asish Aggarwal ORDER (Virtual Mode) 1. In Company Appeal(AT) 106 of 2021 Learned Counsel for the Appellants and Respondents are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the following orders:- 9. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant as also learned counsel for the respondents appearing in caveat, we are of the view that when the matters concerning interlocutory orders passed by the Tribunal are pending in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and the said Appellate Tribunal has already passed the requisite orders for expeditious proceedings, there is no reason for this Court to entertain these appeals and to examine any of the aspects relating to interim arrangement or relating to the merits of the case. In our view, interest of justice shall be served by observing that in the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the subject matter of pending appeals, the NCLAT may assign a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh and they appeared on behalf of the Respondent No. 4 and accepted the Notice. 8. Further order reveals that Learned Counsel Mr. Ashish Aggarwal appeared on behalf of the Respondent No. 5 and Learned Counsel Mr. Anuj Shah appeared on behalf of the Respondent No. 6 and they both accepted the notice. 9. It was submitted by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant that the Respondent No. 8 is Proforma Respondent and Respondent No. 7 is the subsidiary of Respondent No. 4, hence no Notice was required to be serve on Respondent No. 7 8. 10. Today, when the case was called out from the perusal of the office record it appears that Respondent No. 1 to 3 have field their Reply A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
