Ashok Shrikishan Mundra vs Satya Narayan Gupta And Ors

Ashok Shrikishan Mundra .... Appellant Vs. Satya Naryan Gupta & Ors. .... Respondents Present: For Appellant: Mr. Susshil Daga, Advocate, Ms. Akshita KoolWal, CS For Respondent: Dr. U.K. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Naresh Kumar Sejwani, Mr. M. Singh, Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocates for R1 Mr. Virender Ganda, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Tanmay Mangal, Ms. Bharti, Mr. Vipul Ganda, Mr. Prateek Kasliwal, Ms. Guresha Bhamra, Advocates for R2 and R3 With Company Appeal (AT) No. 57 of 2022 IN THE MATTER OF: Silver Soil Industrial Park Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ..... Appellants Vs. Satya Narayan Gupta & Ors. ...... Respondents Present: For Appellant: Mr. Virender Ganda, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Tanmay Mangal, Ms. Bharti, Mr. Vipul Ganda, Mr. Prateek Kasliwal, Ms. Guresha Bhamra, Advocates For Respondent: Dr. U.K. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Naresh Kumar Sejwani, Mr. M. Singh, Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocates for R1 Mr. Susshil Daga, Advocate for R2 Ms. Akshita Koolwal, CS for R2

ORDER

(Through Virtual Mode)

07.04.2022: Heard Mr. Virender Ganda, Learned Senior Advocate in both the

`Appeals' and Dr. U.K. Choudhury, Learned Senior Advocate appearing for R-1

in both the `Appeals'.

Company Appeal (AT) No. 54 of 2022 Company Appeal (AT) No. 57 of 2022 1

2. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant these Two `Appeals'

arise out of the impugned order dated 01.03.2022 in CP No. 09/241-242/JPR/2022

u/s. 241-242 of Companies Act, 2013 whereby and where under the `National

Company Law Tribunal', Jaipur Bench on 01.03.2022 ordered the status quo of

shareholding/directorship as on date of filing of the petition was directed to be

maintained by the parties. Furthermore, the First Respondent/Company in the main

Company Petition was directed to submit the list of all the transactions in respect of

the property of the Company that were executed w.e.f. 01.01.2022 till date.

3. Apart from this, the First Respondent/Company was also directed to furnish a

list of sold and saleable inventory of the company along with the relevant date of

various transactions, which was to be provided in a sealed cover to the 'Tribunal'.

However, no final effect on any transaction in the current calendar year or

registration of the same was directed to be made without prior permission of the

`Tribunal', etc.

4. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants (in both the `Appeals') is

mainly aggrieved with the reliefs relating to:

"The status quo of shareholding/directorship as on date of filing of the Petition shall be maintained by the parties and other relief being granted wherein it was mentioned about the legality of representing himself as a full-time director of the company, it was directed by the `Tribunal' in its `Interim Order' dated 01.03.2022 that R-3 shall refrain from projecting himself as such, till such time that this issue is analysed further by the `Tribunal'".

Company Appeal (AT) No. 54 of 2022 Company Appeal (AT) No. 57 of 2022 2

5. Besides the above, the plea of the Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants

is that, the `Interim Order' dated 01.03.2022 passed by the `Tribunal' was directed

to furnish a list of sold and saleable inventory of the company along with relevant

date of various transactions in a sealed cover to the `Tribunal'.

6. The primordial grievance of the Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants is

that the `Interim Relief' of the `status quo' of shareholding/directorship as on date

of filing of the Petition shall be maintained by all the parties) granted by the

`Tribunal' was only `applicable till the next date of effective hearing' and although,

the main CP No. 09/241-242/JPR/2022 u/s. 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013

comes up before the `Tribunal' today on 07.04.2022 there is uncertainty looming

large as to `what is the next date of hearing', because of the fact that the replies of

the parties were directed to be filed, within three weeks from the date of order

01.03.2022 and the matter was directed to be called on 07.04.2022.

7. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the First Respondent (in both the

`Appeals') adverts to the interim order passed by the 'Tribunal' wherein it is

mentioned that the above `Interim relief' shall be applicable till the next date of

hearing, the same may be modified and, therefore, the present `Appeals' filed by the

Appellants are a `premature' and an `otiose' one. In short, the Learned Senior

Counsel for the 1st Respondent vehemently objects to the contentions raised on

behalf of the Appellants in respect of these two `Appeals'.

8. Be it noted, that this `Tribunal' at the outset, points out that it is not traversing

in to the merits of the matter and also not expressing any opinion one way or the

other, as regards the contentions projected on either side.

Company Appeal (AT) No. 54 of 2022 Company Appeal (AT) No. 57 of 2022 3

9. However, taking into consideration that the interim order granted by the

`Tribunal' on 01.03.2022 is `applicable till the next date of hearing' and the matter

is listed today on 07.04.2022, this `Tribunal' at this stage simpliciter is of the

considered view, that it is open to the respective parties to raise such objections as

they deem fit and proper before the `Tribunal' in regard to the necessary `Interim

Order' to be passed because of the fact that the `Interim Order' is up to 07.04.2022

and the same may be modified as may be deemed appropriate in future listing by the

`Tribunal' in the main Company Petition and that the issue of further/other interim

relief to any of the parties is kept open.

10. Added further, the contention of the Appellants' side is that the `Interim

Order' passed by the `Tribunal' dated 01.03.2022 in the main Company Petition No.

09/241-242/JPR/2022 is strangulating the `affairs of the company', which fact is

disputed on behalf of the First Respondent.

11. Be that as it may, keeping in mind the contentions advanced on either side,

that the `Interim Order' passed by the `Tribunal' is only up to 07.04.2022 and further

it provides for modification of the same in future, when the main Petition is listed,

to secure the `ends of Justice', this `Tribunal' (without displacing the `Interim Order'

which lasts till 07.04.2022), disposes of these two instant `Appeals' (by not delving

into the merits of the matter), in directing the `National Company Law Tribunal' to

take up the main CP No. 09/241-242/JPR/2022 (filed under Section 241-242 of the

Companies Act, 2013), within one week from the date of passing of this order and

further the `Tribunal' is required to pass necessary reasoned order on merits, after

providing due opportunities to both parties (by adhering to the principles of natural

justice) ascribing adequate/sufficient reasons thereafter, of course, uninfluenced and

Company Appeal (AT) No. 54 of 2022 Company Appeal (AT) No. 57 of 2022 4 untrammelled with any of the observations made by this `Tribunal' in these two

`Appeals'.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Comp App (AT) 54 of 2022

and Comp App (AT) 57 of 2022 stands disposed of. No costs.

(Justice M. Venugopal) Member (Judicial)

(Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra) Member (Technical) shashi/gc & sr

Company Appeal (AT) No. 54 of 2022 Company Appeal (AT) No. 57 of 2022 5