Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (3) TMI 631

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... irector affects the maintainability of an appeal filed by that director on behalf of the corporate debtor or not - HELD THAT:- There are a few facts which emerges for consideration by us are that the power of recall is not the power which is specifically vested with the Appellate Tribunals. Except for owing to the exceptional circumstance, as carved out in Union Bank of India Vs Mr. Dinkar T. Venkatasubramaniam & Ors. [2023 (7) TMI 209 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI], wherein the powers to recall has been confined to be applied, subject to certain embargos as contained in it, that Judgment on recall does not have universal applicability and more particularly when the recall in itself, though it may n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e 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 facts, which emerge for consideration are that when the matter came up for consideration on 14.10.2024, an objecti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 Holdings Pte. Ltd. having a shareholding of 0.01%. It was argued by the Learned Counsel for the Applicant that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cted 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 High Court and the present special leave petitions". Based upon the aforesaid directives of the Hon'ble Apex Co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 recall which has been preferred by the shareholder, he cannot be permitted to be substituted in place of the S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates