TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e related with such transaction, the recourse of which lie in the civil court and also the fact that the said order was not challenged rather the civil suit was filed by the Appellants and thereafter in order to avoid legal complication of maintaining the main petition on the same cause of action against Respondent No. 4 to 8 and 13 against whom the civil suit has also been filed on the same cause of action, application for deletion of their name and the prayer made in the main petition would be enough to show that Respondent No. 4 to 8 and 13 were unnecessary dragged in the litigation initiated against them in the main petition in which Respondent No. 4 to 8 and 13 had to file their reply, contested the application and the said proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the society being prejudiced by the order of stay which continued to operate against them in the main petition. 2. In brief, the Appellants herein filed CP No. 46 of 2017 before the Tribunal against the Company Gangotri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 1) and Respondent No. 2 to 13 under Section 241, 242 and 243 of the Companies Act, 2013 (in short Act ). 3. The first order in the main petition was passed on 10.04.2017 and the order of stay was passed on 08.05.2017 against Respondent No. 4 to 8 and 13 which continued from time to time and ultimately vacated on 18.12.2019 with the observation that under such circumstances, when petitioner is also not pursuing the matter to get it concluded which is filed under Section 241, 242 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt No. 4 to 8 and 13 by filing their reply and after two years the order of stay granted to the Appellant on 08.05.2017 was vacated on 18.12.2019 and the transaction of sale of the plot which was subject matter of the main petition was brought to challenge by the Appellant before the Civil Court by way of Civil Suit and since the Appellant could not have continued parallel proceedings on the same issue/cause of action in two Courts i.e. before the Tribunal as well as the Civil Court, therefore, an application bearing 219 of 2020 was filed to delete the names of Respondent No. 4 to 8 and 13 from the array of parties in the main petition and also sought deletion of the prayers made against them as the final reliefs as well as the interim reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the said transaction by way of civil suit and in order to avoid objection regarding parallel proceedings, their names have been deleted which does not attract the imposition of cost of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 8. We have heard Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record. The very fact that the stay granted against the Respondent No. 4 to 8 and 13 continued for two years and was vacated on 18.12.2019 may be with an observation that Respondent No. 4 to 8 were nowhere related with such transaction, the recourse of which lie in the civil court and also the fact that the said order was not challenged rather the civil suit was filed by the Appellants and thereafter in order to avoid legal complication of maintaining the main petition on the same ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
