9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ajor share holder of the petitioner company is the subject matter of a suit in this High Court and the issue is yet to be decided. It is not for the BIFR or AAIFR to adjudicate this issue. The suit has since been transferred to the Saket District Court. The impugned order does not call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In any case, with the enforcement of the Sick In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the petitioner company being Case No. 65/2002. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner company questions the finding recorded in the impugned order of the BIFR that Videocon Industries Ltd., hereinafter referred to as VIL and Shekhar Bhandari are the major share-holders of the petitioner company. This finding, which has also been reiterated in the impugned order, will cause pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute of shareholding is decided in its favour, it would cause gave prejudice to the respondent. On the other hand, if the respondent no. 13 is allowed to participate in the BIFR proceedings and subsequently the dispute of shareholding is decided against it, the same would not cause any grave prejudice to the appellant. As such, we are of the considered view that respondent no. 13 has been right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
