9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n - shareholding of petitioner is 70% or not - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal lucidly makes it quite clear that the Tentative Observations, made to the effect that the very Locus standi of the Petitioners to file Company Petition at stake, etc. shall not stand in the way of the Tribunal in deciding or rendering findings of the Locus of the Petitioners and the issues / points for determination, while adverting to the same and the Tentative Finding, so rendered in the impugned orders cannot be a decisive and governing factor for the Tribunal to decide the main Company Petition, in a final and conclusive manner of course, in a fair, just, dispassionate manner and to pass a reasoned speaking order, in a qualitative and quantitative terms by advertin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the 'Tribunal', had made the following observations: - "2. Respondents No.1, 2, 5 and 6 have filed Counter, inter alia, contending that the claim of petitioner that he holds 70% share is false. 3. According to the respondents as on the date of filing the present Company Petition, the petitioner has zero shares in the 1st respondent / company. The respondent has also referred to the direction of this Tribunal dated 16.11.2021 to the petitioner to file share certificates in proof of their shareholding within three days of the order. The said direction of this Tribunal has not been complied with by the petitioner. Thus, from the above it is clear that the very locus standi, of the petitioner in filing the company petition itself is at s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bout the 'Locus standi' of the 'Appellants' / 'Petitioners', to file the Company Petition, which is purportedly, 'at stake'. 4. This 'Tribunal', after 'Hearing' the Learned Senior Counsel for the 'Appellants' / 'Petitioners' in these 'Three Appeals', is not inclined to 'displace' the 'impugned orders', passed by the 'Tribunal', but, pertinently points out that on behalf of the 'Appellants' / 'Petitioners', it is shown before this 'Tribunal' that in terms of the 'Memorandum of Association' Mr. Rajeev Satpal Lakhanpal has 70% shares and, therefore, he has every right to be 'Heard' in the main Company Petition and, as such, this 'Tribunal', is of the considered view that the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, when it takes up the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any Petition', in a final and conclusive manner of course, in a fair, just, dispassionate manner and to pass a 'reasoned speaking order', in a qualitative and quantitative terms by adverting to the points / issues raised and the documents were filed or produced and after weighing the 'pros and cons' of the materials can arrive at a 'reasonable prudent conclusion', viz., in the manner known to 'Law' and in accordance with 'Law', after providing due opportunities to the relevant parties, by adhering to the principles of 'Natural Justice' in 'stricto senso' of the term. With these 'observations', the 'Three Appeals' (Comp. App. (AT) Nos.62, 63 and 65/2022) are 'disposed of'. No Costs. Before parting with the Case, this 'Tribunal' points out t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
