Lakshman Karia & Anr vs Ghk Hospitality & Infrastructures ...

Lakshman Karia & Anr. Appellants

Versus

GHK Hospitality & Infrastructures Limited & Ors. ... Respondents

Present: For Appellants: Shri Krishnendu Datta with Shri Aman Varma, Ms. Anshula Grover and Shri Shantanu Parashar, Advocates

For Respondent No. 2: Ms. Prachi Wazalwar with Ms. Shruti Iyer, Advocates

ORDER

17.08.2017

I.A. No. 314 of 2017:

Heard the parties. Being satisfied with the ground shown in

the petition, delay of seven days in re-filing is condoned. I.A. No.

314 of 2017 stands disposed of.

Company Appeal (AT) No. 196 of 2017;

The appellants/ petitioners preferred an application under

Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 alleging

'prejudicial' and 'oppressive' conduct of the 2nd to 4th Respondents

to the interest of the appellants. While the Company Petition was pending, the appellants preferred an application for interim relief

for stay of Extra Ordinary General Meeting, which is to be held on

15th May, 2017, wherein it was proposed to remove the first

appellant-Mr. Lakshman Karia, as the Director of the Company.

The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai

(hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') by the impugned order dated

11th May, 2017, while refused to pass any interim order, issued

formal notice on the contesting respondents for hearing the

Company Petition on merits.

Today, when the matter was taken up, it has been informed

that the Extra Ordinary General Meeting of the Company held on

15th May, 2017 and the first appellant-Lakshman Karia has already

been removed as a Director. In the circumstances, the question of

passing any interim order as prayed by the Appellant does not arise.

For the said very reason, while we are not inclined to interfere with

the impugned order dated 11th May, 2017, make it clear that any

observation made by the Tribunal in its order dated 11th May, 2017,

will not come in the way of the appellants/ petitioners or the

respondents for determination of the case on merits. The Tribunal

is expected to decide the petition under Sections 241 and 242 of the

Companies Act, 2013 on merit alter hearing the parties,

uninfluenced by the impugned order dated 11th May, 2017.

It is needless to state that if the allegation made by the

appellants/ petitioners are answered in affirmative in favour of

appellants, it will be open to the Tribunal to grant appropriate relief

in terms of Section 242 of the Companies Act, including restoration

of the first appellant as the Director. We make it clear that we have

not gone into the merits of the case and have not decided the claim

and counter claim of the respective parties. It is for the Tribunal to

decide the same.

The appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid

observations. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case,

there shall be no order as to costs.

[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

/ng/