Balraju Sunkari & Ors vs N. Sekhar Reddy & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No.278 of 2017
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a Company Application objecting to the maintainability of a Company Petition has been disposed of together with a direction that the petition be heard on merits, and the pleadings are incomplete, the Tribunal will not interfere in an appeal against that interim order where the impugned order directs the respondents to file a comprehensive reply to all allegations in the petition and expressly preserves the appellant's right to raise any further contentions, since the appellant's objections remain open for consideration at the stage of final hearing.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Balraju Sunkari & Ors ...Appellants
Vs
N. Sekhar Reddy & Ors ...Respondents
Present: Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Dr. S.V.Rama Krishna, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and 2.
ORDER
23.10.2017- Heard Learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Respondent. Perused the record. The appeal has been filed against the interim order dated 28th July, 2017. The Learned counsel for the appellant is submitting that the Company Petition was not maintainable and so Company Application was filed objecting the same but it was disposed off on the same day. It is stated that although the order mentions that the allegations made by both the parties are required to be examined at the time of final hearing, no opportunity was given to file the reply to the Company Petition and without ensuring compliance of stages before matter comes up for final hearing, it has been posted for final hearing.
It appears that earlier there was a Company Petition No.55 of 2014 which was withdrawn by granting leave to the petitioner to file fresh Company Petition for the same cause of action by taking all available pleas and thus the Company Petition has been filed. Counsel for appellant accepts that the earlier order granting leave was not challenged. Learned NCLT referred to the dispute in Company Petition No.55/2015 and dispute which is now raised and observed that the allegations are required to be examined and to consider the contentins in part would cause further delay to decide the case. It observed that in such circumstances it would appropriate to decide the main case itself immediately after completion of pleadings.
For such reasons, vide the impugned order the Company Application No.136/2017 in Company Petition No.74/241/HDB/2017 was disposed. In the order the last sentence says that Company Petition is posted for final hearing on 30.08.2017. Counsel for the Respondent agrees that the pleadings are not yet complete. In fact the impugned order directs Respondents in para 8 to file comprehensive reply to all allegations made in the company petition apart from the contentions and allegations which they had raised in the application. Thus by this impugned order the Learned NCLT kept the doors open for the appellant to raise contentions it wants to raise. We have not doubts that the NCLT will receive the reply as was directed in para 8 of impugned order and follow the necessary procedure.
We donot find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. We find no substance in the appeal. The appeal is rejected.
(Justice A.I.S. Cheema) Member (Judicial)
(Justice Bansi Lal Bhat) (Mr. Balvinder Singh) Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)
Bm/sh/nn
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free