Devendra Kumar Aggarwal & Ors vs Prayag Polytech Pvt Ltd & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 93 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal, in exercising its power under Section 243 of the Companies Act, 2013 pending a petition under Sections 241 and 242, may direct that decisions taken by the Board in which a particular director participates as part of a resolution are to remain subject to the outcome of the main petition, and an appellate challenge to such an interim direction will not be entertained where no ground for interference is shown.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Devendra Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents
Present:
For Appellants : Mr. Mohit Chaudhary and Ms. Garima Sharma, Advocates
For Respondents: Mr. Virender Ganda, Senior Advocate
ORDER
10.04.2019 The Appellant (Petitioner) has already preferred a petition
under Section 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 in C.P. No. 89/242-
242/JPR/2018 before the National Company Law Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short)
Jaipur Bench. In the said petition, the petitioner filed an Interlocutory
Application seeking direction against the respondent for suspension of
Respondent No. 5 in respect of operation of the bank accounts. The Tribunal by
the impugned order dated 22nd February, 2019 while taking into consideration
the provisions of Section 243 of the Companies Act, 2013 directed that all the
decisions which have taken where Respondent No. 5 - 'Mr. Manish Aggarwal' is
a part of the Resolution passed by the Board will be subject to the decision of
the Tribunal in the main Company Petition.
Having heard Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, learned counsel for the Appellant and
Mr. Virender Ganda, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order.
- 2-
It is informed by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the matter is
pending since 2018. In this background, the parties are directed not to ask for
unnecessary adjournments, nor will file the repeated Interlocutory Applications
and will co-operate with the Tribunal for an early disposal.
The appeal is dismissed with aforesaid observations and directions. No
cost.
[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[ Justice A.I.S. Cheema ] Member (Judicial)
[ Kanthi Narahari ] Member (Technical)
/ns/gc
Company Appeal (AT) No. 93 of 2019
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