Pitamberdas B Ruchandani vs Radhakishan B. Rucjanadani And Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Pitamberdas R. Ruchandani ...Appellant

Versus

Radhakrishna B. Ruchandani & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. M.S. Vishnu Sankar, Mr. Aditya Santhosh, Ms. Maneesha Sunil Kumar, Mr. Anandhu S. Nair, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Dhiren R Dave, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Vikrant N Goyal, Ms. Nishu, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

16.05.2025: This appeal has arisen from the order dated 23.03.2022

passed in I.A No. 933 of 2020. The impugned order reads as under:-

"IA 933 of 2020

Application is filed by original respondent company seeking various directions. Learned Counsel Mr. Godiawala for respondent states that prayer A does not survive today as after passing order dated 13.04.2017 due to various developments leading to the new circumstances. Learned Counsel further states that prayer B and C may be granted. Prayer C is with respect to suspension of the interim order dated 30.05.2013 passed by erstwhile CLB. We have perused the order dated 30.05.2013 but in view of the final order passed by the predecessor Bench of 13.04.2017 disposing of the main petition, interim order passed by the erstwhile CLB also gets disposed of.

The order dated 13.04.2017 disposing of main petition, it is ordered at para 80 that "in view of the above said order, no

Contd../-

-2- other relief need be granted in this petition. The Pending applications are closed. Interim orders, if any, passed shall be in force, till transfer of shares as ordered above". As per submissions by both sides, shares of petitioner are bought by respondent. Payment is received by the petitioner as agreed, the respective IAs filed by both sides are disposed of and nothing survives in the application, hence, interim orders, if any, passed also stands vacated. With this directions, we disposed of IA 933 of 2020. Main petition is also disposed of on 30.04.2017.

IA 933 of 2020 is disposed of."

2. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that while passing the order

on 13.04.2017, it has been ordered by the Company Law Board that the

order dated 30.05.2013 shall remain in force till transfer of shares as

ordered. He further submits that the shares have already been bought from

the company as per the order of NCLAT dt. 28.01.2022 passed in Company

Appeal (AT) No. 216/2020. The grievance of the appellant is that the

Respondent No. 9 (RoC, Ahmedabad) is not passing the necessary orders on

the ground that the order dated 13.04.2017 is still in force.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and are of the

considered opinion that the present appeal at this stage is not maintainable.

Because of the redressal of its grievance, the appellant may file an

appropriate application before the Ld. Tribunal itself for seeking

clarification. However, in case the appellant is still remains unsatisfied with

any order which may be passed by the Tribunal, he shall be at liberty to file

Company Appeal (AT) No. 84 of 2022 -3-

an appeal with accordance with law. It is further directed that if any such

application is filed within 15 days from today, the Ld. Tribunal shall make

an endeavour to decide the same as early as possible.

4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)

[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical)

SA/RR

Company Appeal (AT) No. 84 of 2022