Anoop Sharma vs Acumen Overseas Private Limited

1 For Respondent: Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Prashant, Mr. Manav Gill, Mr. Shivang Gupta, Advocates

ORDER

(HYBRID MODE)

20.01.2025: These five appeals are against an impugned order dated

06.09.2024 passed on separate/similar applications moved by Respondent

No. 2 herein, in five Company petitions filed by Appellant. The impugned

order is as under:-

"13. Further, the Ld. Counsel

for the Respondent has fairly

submitted that the Respondent has not

taken any decision or action which

would cause any prejudice to the

interest of the company. The

admitted position is that the

Respondent has been removed from

the Director and his name has been

shown as removed as the Director in

the records of the RoC.

14. We are therefore of the view that

the cause of action in the present

application does not survive any longer

and therefore no relief as prayed for by

the Applicant in this application be

granted at this stage. It is reiterated

2 however, that any decision in the

meeting held on 11.02.2022 or any

resolution passed shall be the outcome

of the present petition including the

consequential entry in the records of the

RoC."

2. It is argued the Appellant has never admitted he has been removed as a

Director of the Company as an earlier order dated 11.2.2024 very well notes

any action taken in the meeting and/or any resolution passed will be subject to

the outcome of the company petition.

3. Admittedly, in the order dated 11.2.2022 and similar order(s) passed in

all other company petitions, the issue of legality of removal of the Appellant

from the Board of Directors is left open and is subject to the outcome of those

company petition (s).

4. Thus, as we understand the position is though the respondents claim

the appellant has been removed in the AGM dated 03.03.2022 and is no longer

a Director of the Company, hence cannot claim or represent himself as a

Director of the Company, as he usually claims in various communications;

but the Appellant still claims to be a Director of the Company as he says the

legality of his removal is still under challenge and is made subject to the

outcome of company petitions.

5. Thus, we find, as of now, the Appellant has been removed as a Director

of the Company in its AGM dated 03.03.2022. Hence, though this position

is to be tested by the Ld. NCLT but till such time the Appellant cannot exercise

3 any right as a director of the company, hence must refrain from representing

himself as a director till company petitions are heard and finally decided.

6. The Appellant is also aggrieved of the fact that para 13 of the impugned

order dated 06.09.2024 notes of an alleged admitted position qua his removal.

Now this question is still sub-judice, hence we dispose of all these appeals by

requesting the ld. NCLT to dispose of the Company Petitions as expeditiously

and as possible and without being influenced by any such observation as is

made in para 13 of the impugned order.

6. Appeals stand dispose of. Pending application, including that of

condonation, also are disposed of.

[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical)

ss/manu

4