Dharamdas Nandlal Mehta & Anr vs Meridian Construction Pvt. Ltd

Dharamdas Nandlal Mehta & Anr. ...Appellants

Vs.

Meridian Construction Pvt. Ltd. .. .Respondent

Present: For Appellants:- Sh. Arun Kathpalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kunal Vajani and Mr. Shubham Kaishiestha, Advocates.

For Respondent:- Mr. Abhishek, Ms. Tamoghna Goswami and Mr. Sameer Abhyank, Advocates.

ORDER

28.07.2017- These appeals have been preferred by appellants-

Dharamdas Nandlal Mehta & Anr, who were the Applicants/ Petitioners,

before the National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as

"Tribunal) Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, against an interim order dated 13th

January, 2017 passed in Interim Application No. 03 of 2016 in Transfer

Company Petition No. 31 /(MAH)/2015.

2. The other order under challenge in the connected appeal is the

order dated 8th February, 2017, whereby an order of injunction has been

passed.

3. Earlier, we noticed that the main dispute during the pendency

of the Company Petition related to an immovable property known as

"Hendre House, Girgaon", Mumbai.

-p

-2-

4. This Appellate Tribunal on 23rd February 2017 while issued

notice to the respondents, prohibited them from making any further

construction/alteration/renovation or any addition/ change in the

structure known as "Hendre House, Girgaon". Though it was alleged

that the respondent violated the interim order passed by the Tribunal.

Mr. Harresh N. Mehta, the 2nd Respondent was asked to appear, who

appeared on 20th March, 2017 and filed an affidavit justifying his action

which was rejected by this Appellate Tribunal. By order dated 23'

March, 2017, the Tribunal was also asked to proceed with the Company

petition and the Contempt Petition(s) which were pending since long.

Subsequently when the parties informed that they are settling the

dispute, we granted long adjournment.

5. On 24th July, 2017, Ld. Counsel for the parties submitted that

by way of last chance they should be allowed to file the terms of

settlement and sought for two days' time. On the request of the Ld.

Counsels for the parties, we adjourned the case with clear

understanding that if no settlement is made, then the Appellate Tribunal

may proceed with the appeal.

6. Today, when the matter was taken up again, Ld. Counsel for

the parties informed that the terms of the settlement is almost going to

be completed and prayed for time but we reject such prayer.

7. We have noticed that an interim order has already been passed

by the Appellate Tribunal on 23rd February 2017 and the said interim -3-

order has taken care of both the parties and continuing for last more

than five months. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the said interim

order passed on 23rd February 2017 should continue till the Company

petition is finally disposed of by the Tribunal. If one or other party has

not complied with any of the order passed by the Tribunal, it will be

open to the Tribunal to pass appropriate order in the pending Contempt

Petition(s), in accordance with law after notice to the Contemnor.

However, we give liberty to the parties to settle the dispute. The case is

remitted to the Tribunal for its decision. In case the settlement fails, the

Tribunal will decide both the Company Petition on merit. In the

meantime, if the parties file terms of settlement, the Tribunal will pass

appropriate order taking into consideration the terms of settlement and

close the Company Petition. In such circumstances, it will be open to

the Tribunal to dispose of the Contempt Petition, if the contemnors

tender unconditional and unqualified apology.

Both the appeals stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations

and directions.

(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson

(Mr. Balvinder Singh) Member(Technical) ar