Kishore Kakumal Keswani vs Manohar Kakumal Keswani & Ors

1

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI COMPANY APPEAL (AT) NO.76 OF 2026 (Arising out of judgement and order dated 30.01.2026 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Company Petition No.1300/2020) In the matter of: Kishore Kakumal Keswani Appellant Vs Manohar Kakumal Keswani & Ors Respondent For Appellant:Mr Kunal Tandon, Sr Advocate, Mr Meghav Gupta, Ms Natasha, Advocates. For Respondent:Mr Rishav Banerjee, Mr Ativ Patil, Advocates.

ORDER

HYBRID MODE 13.03.2026: This appeal is filed by the appellant against an impugned

order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the Ld. NCLT, Mumbai in CP

No.1300/MB/2020 as under:-

"2.It is noted that there is no Administrator in place to manage the affairs of

the Company, accordingly, we feel that the Board of Directors are competent

to manage and conduct the business of the Company as of now till any

changes are made in the Administrative structure. However, the Board of

Directors of the Respondent Company may consider inclusion of the

Petitioner as well in the decision making process."

2

2. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that

the appellant was earlier a director in the Company but was removed in the year

2020 and he filed the Company Petition challenging his removal as also on other

grounds. Admittedly his removal is subject to the disposal of the company

petition. During the pendency of this petition the impugned order was passed

and it is argued though the Ld. NCLT has directed his inclusion in the decision

making process may be considered by the Board of Directors but the Board of

Directors comprising of the respondents are reluctant to do so. Admittedly the

petition is now listed for arguments on 20.03.2026 hence it is argued till the

decision of the company petition, the appellant may also be included in the

Board. Admittedly the appellant is shareholder to an extent of 8.37% though he

claims his shareholding earlier was 20% but with the right issue, under

challenge, his shareholding was brought down to 8.37%.

3. However, the learned senior counsel argued despite the fact he has been

removed from the Board of Directors he is still holding on to company's asset viz

the hotel premises and is not allowing anyone to enter there. Be that as it may

since the question of his removal as a director is pending before Ld. NCLT and

since the company petition is now listed on 20.03.2026 for final arguments,

though now it is alleged the appellant has also moved an amendment application

which may take sometime, but in these circumstances we are not inclined to

interfere in the impugned order but rather direct the Respondents to comply with

the same and may include the appellant in the major policy decisions. Since

both the parties are ad-idem the hotel is not sold as yet, hence status quo be 3

maintained qua ownership and possession of the said hotel till the decision of

the company petition.

4. With these observations, we dispose of this appeal.

5. Pending applications 1640/2026, 1641/2026 and 1642/2026are also

disposed of.

(Justice Yogesh Khanna) Member (Judicial)

(Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra) Member (Technical) Bm/rr