Iberchem S.A vs Yatin Chandulal Davda

2. Iberchem India Limited, 38/A, Radhe Industrial Estate, Tajpur Road, Tal. Sanand, Changodar, Ahmedabad - 382 213. ... Appellants

- Versus -

1. Yatin Chandulal Davda, 17, Mandar Bunglows, Nr. Surdhara Circle, Thaltej, Ahmedabad.

2. Beena Yatin Davda, 17, Mandar Bunglows, Nr. Surdhara Circle, Thaltej, Ahmedabad.

3. Marco Manlio Ciccarelli, APT Blk 14 Marine, Terrace # 10-182m Singapore - 440 014.

4. Samir Sumanlal Modi, C-203, Prerna Tower, Opp. Sunrise Park, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad -380 054.

C. Jacobo De Las, Leyes 12 P0 1 F, Murcia - 380 001 ES.

6. Jose Escribano Balibrea, C. Juan De La Clerva, 73B Guadalupe, Murcia - 30107 ES

Company Appeal (AT) No. 374 of 2017 2

7. Alvin Kai Wah Ho, 28, Jalan Ketumbit, Singapore 808881 SG. ... Respondents

Present : Shri Ritujay Gupta, Advocate for the Appellants.

Shri Rakesh Parikh, Advocate for Respondents Nos. 1 & 2.

ORDER

28.11.2017 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the

learned counsel for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned order passed in

I.A. No. 317/2017 in C.P. No. 172/241-242/NCLT/AHM/2017, where

the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ('NCLT' in brief)

passed orders as under :

"Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Saurabh Soparkar with

Learned Advocate Mr. Bijal Chhatrapati i/b. J. Sagar

& Associates present for Applicant/original

Respondent. Learned Advocate Mr. Ramesh Parikh

with Learned PCS Mr. Hitesh Buch present for

Respondent/Original Petitioner in IA 317/2017.

Learned Advocate Mr. Sujal Shah present of Original

Respondents no. 3 to 7.

Heard Learned Counsel for applicant and

Respondents in IA 317/2017.

Company Appeal (AT) No. 374 of 2017 3

Applicants herein already filed IA 316/2017 under

section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

and it is pending for hearing before this Tribunal.

Hence there is no impediment for the applicants

herein to file their reply in main petition without

prejudice to their Contention in their application in IA

316/2017 and IA 318/2017.

Hence, Applicants herein/Respondents shall file reply

on or before 09.11.2017 after serving copy in advance

to the other side.

Application IA 317/2017 is disposed of accordingly."

3. Learned NCLT passed further order (which is also impugned)

below the Company Petition as under :

"Learned Advocate Mr. Rasesh Parikh with

Learned PCS Mr. Hitesh Buch i/b Learned Advocate

Ms. Bhoomi Brahmakshatriya present for Original

Petitioner. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Saurabh

Soparkar with Learned Advocate Mr. Bijal

Chhatrapati i/b J. Sagar present for Original

Respondents No. 1 to 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Sujal

Shah present for Original Respondents No. 4 and 5.

In view of the order in IA 317/2017

Respondents shall file reply on or before 09.11.2017.

Company Appeal (AT) No. 374 of 2017 4

List the matter on 09.11.2017."

4. Against these impugned orders, the appellants have filed this

appeal and at the time of issuing notice on 9th November, 2017, this

Tribunal passed further order as mentioned below :

"In the meantime, the Appellants may file

reply to the Company petition pending before the

Tribunal and the Respondents may also file their

rejoinder. Pendency of the appeal will not come in

the way of Tribunal to decide the Application under

Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996

uninfluenced by the order passed by the Tribunal."

5. Now it appears that the appellant has already filed affidavit in

reply in the Company Petition and the learned NCLT has also heard the

arguments below I.A. No. 316/2017, which was filed under Section 8 of

the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Learned counsel for the

Respondent says that he has just received the affidavit in reply and he

will soon be filing rejoinder in the main Company Petition. The learned

counsel for the appellant has tendered across the Board copy of the

orders dated 10th November, 2017, which is taken on record and marked

as 'X' for identification. The order reads as under :

"Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Saurabh Soparkar with

Learned Advocate Mr. Bijal Chhatrapati with Learned

Advocate Mr. Siddharth Sinha i/b J Sagar &

Company Appeal (AT) No. 374 of 2017 5

Associates present for Applicant. Learned Advocate

Mr. Rasesh Parikh with Learned Advocate Mr. Kisan

Dave with Learned PCS Mr. Hitesh Buch present for

Respondent and Learned Advocate Mr. Sujal Shah

present for Respondent no. 3 to 7 in IA 316/2017.

Heard arguments of Learned Counsel for Respondent.

Order reserved in IA 316/2017."

6. Thus the orders are reserved. The learned counsel for the

appellant is insisting that the present appeal may be kept pending

although affidavit in reply has been filed and although I.A. No.

316/2017 has already been heard and reserved for orders. He submits

that the appellant is apprehensive, in case I.A. is not decided first and

the Company Petition gets disposed of. We do not find any basis for the

apprehension of the appellant. In the face of the above developments

and orders, the present appeal becomes infructuous as nothing survives

in it for decision.

7. The appeal is dismissed as infructuous. No orders as to costs.

[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)

[Balvinder Singh] Member (Technical) /ng/nn

Company Appeal (AT) No. 374 of 2017