9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther the observations made by the NCLT regarding the submissions made by the Applicant be expunged. The fact remains that there was a JDA between the parties and there are no force in the contention of the Appellant that these statements may cause harm, if used in any collateral proceedings. Also, RoC did not prefer any Appeal and that the Appellant Counsel has categorically stated that they do not have any objection to the name of the Ahuja Company being restored in the Register of Companies. There is no rebuttal by the Respondent with respect to the contention of the Appellant that they were not put to Notice or heard on that particular date as the matter was taken up allowing the early hearing Application. This Appeal by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the Appellant Company, without putting the Appellant to Notice, would cause irreparable harm to the Appellant Company. 2. By the Impugned Order, NCLT has restored the name of the Company namely Ahuja Angan Creators Private Limited in the Register of Companies and observed as follows: Counsel for the applicant is present. Counsel for respondent no. 4 is present. It is prayed that appeal no. 1196 of 2018 be heard as the pleadings are complete. As per the last order the matter was fixed for early hearing. The CA is allowed. The main petition i.e. 1196 of 2018 is listed. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the company viz., Ahuja Angan Creators Pvt Ltd., was incorporated on 10.12.2012 and ending 31.03.2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring that during the period of demonetization the accounts of the company have not been used for deposit of tainted money. In terms of the above, appeal no. 1196 of 2018 is allowed. (Emphasis Supplied) 3. It is the main case of the Appellant that while they have no objection to the name of the Company namely Ahuja Angan Creators Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Ahuja Company ) being restored but their limited grievance is only with respect to the observations made by the NCLT with regard to an amount of ₹ 5Crs./- has been paid to Respondent No. 6 and the land which is in possession of the Company is to be developed and the flats are to be delivered to the Homebuyers . 4. The Registrar of Companies, D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 of the JDA enumerates that Ahuja Company shall paid an amount of ₹ 5Crs/- as an interest free Security Deposit to the Appellant Company and that Clause 2.7 clearly states that the legal and physical possession of the Project land shall always remain with the Appellant Company. 7. As against this argument, Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 5 submits that the Appellant does not have any locus standi to file this Appeal; and that is should be the Court s endeavour to support the revival of the Company and justness should be from the perspective of the society as a whole as laid down by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in Siddhant Garg Vs. Registrar of Companies (2012) SCC OnLine Del 802. It is also the case of the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
