9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l ) And [ Jatindranath Swain ] Member ( Technical ) For the Applicant : Mr. M.S. Shyamsundar, Senior Advocate For Mr. Sriram Venkatavaradan , Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Chandramouli Prabhakar, Advocate for R1 Mr. Varghese Thomas, Advocate for R3 Mr. P.S. Raman, Senior Advocate For Mr. Vinod Kumar , Advocate for R6 ORDER ( Hybrid Mode ) Per : Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma , Member ( Judicial ) This Company Appeal is listed for consideration of a recall application being IA No.1293/2024 & IA No.1295/2024, where both the Applicants have sought the recall of the order dated 14.10.2024 in CA (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.129/2024, by virtue of which we had vacated the earlier interim order granted by this Tribunal on 18.04.2024. The fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been taken in the application seeking for recall of the order dated 14.10.2024 by the Applicant in IA 1293/2024, was that since being a nominee director of the board of directors of the Corporate Debtor M/s. Tarun Realtors Private Limited, who had preferred the instant Appeal being aggrieved as against the Impugned Order passed on 20.07.2023, passed in CP(IB) No.72/BB/2021, which was as against allowing an application which had been preferred under Section 9 of the I & B Code, 2016. The Applicant (Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd.) in his capacity as a shareholder had pleaded that the Corporate Debtor, had three shareholders, holding 49.99% shareholding by the Applicant, 50% shareholding by the M/s. Virtuous Retail Pte. Ltd. and M/s. Moribus H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2024, as it was passed by the High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, vide its order dated 22.11.2024, had directed that the CIRP will continue in accordance with law, which would be subject to the final outcome of Writ Petitions, pending before High Court of Karnataka as against the order passed by us on 14.10.2024, vacating the stay order and dismissing the Company Appeal. The Hon'ble Apex Court had passed the following orders: - "We, as an ad interim measure, direct that the CIRP proceedings will continue in accordance with the law, subject to the final outcome of Writ Petition No.29129/2024, titled "Baskaran S. v The Registrar of NCLAT & Ors" before the High Court of Karnataka, and other connected writ petitions pending before the Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt the recall application, because besides the applicant, there are other shareholders who are holding shares in a higher proportion, than that of the applicant who are not before us. The shareholders cannot be substituted in place of the Suspended Director, as they happen to be the shareholders limited to their rights restrained by investment in the Corporate Debtor. Exclusively, owing to the fact that on the date of passing of the order i.e., 14.10.2024, it is an admitted case that Mr. S. Baaskaran, who had then filed the Company Petition in the capacity of being the Suspended Director, since has admittedly resigned as a director from the Company of the Corporate Debtor, could not have been permitted to be continued and furthermore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
