Promas Engineers Pvt Ltd & Ors vs James Martin Pereria & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No.98 of 2007
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal expresses no opinion on the merits of the impugned interim order. Having regard to the Tribunal's power under Section 422 of the Companies Act, 2013, it disposes of the appeal by directing the parties to cooperate in the final hearing, requiring the Tribunal to dispose of the company petition by a fixed date, and providing that the interim order dated 3 March 2017 shall stand vacated if the petition is not disposed of by the stipulated date, with liberty to the parties to seek interim relief from the Appellate Tribunal if delay is not attributable to them.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Present: Mr. Arun Katpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr Bijal Rathod, Mr. Lakshay Sawhney, Ms Vaishali M, Advoeate for the appellant. Mr Sumit Goel, Advacate from Parekh & Co for the
Respondents. ORDER
LLO4.2017 - Issue Notice. Mr. Sumit Gocl, Advocate accepts notice on
behalf of the respondents. No further notice be issued to them.
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 3° March, 2017 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in CP No. 08/241, 242/NCLT/MB/MAH/2017. By the impugned order the Tribunal restrained the appellant company/respondent from implementing the Resclution passed by the Board pertaining to the allocation of Right Offer.
Learned Counsel appearmge on behalf of the appellants submits that the company is in need of funds and for raising of funds the impugned order is allowed to be vacated in the interest of the company. It is further submitted that
the rights offer is open to all including the respondents.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents subrnits that on 29° March, 2017 the matter was taken up when the Tribunal passed the following arder:
"2.48 far as Speaking te the Minutes is concerned, in the Order dated 03.03.2017 in CP Ne, 08/2017 on Page 4 para fl, # ne the sword "Petitioner" is wrongly tvped instead of the ward "Respondents". Therefore, it is carrected. Henceforth, the word "Respondents ° shall be read instead af "Petitioner"
3. ft is informed that an dddi. Affidavit has been Aled fram the side of the Respondents. The Petitioner is seeking time to Ale the Counter-affidavit,
Granted,
The Petitioner is aivo asking inspection of certain documents from the Respondents, therefore, i is hereby directed that the Petitioner shall give list of the dacumenty to the Respondents to be inspected en or fhefare 313.2017 and thereafter hath the Learned Representatives shall fix the date for inspection of only those documents. Ch the date fixed the Respondents shail give inspection and photecapy of tose doeuments to the Fetitioner's Representative. Thereafter the Petitioner shall fille Counter Affidavit, if deemed fil, on or befare £7 08.2017 with a copy fo be
sepved in aelvance to ihe other side.
&. Qn completion of this part of the pleadings, since rest af the pleadings are already completed, therefore, matter is listed for final hearing on 28.04.2017 as cansented by both the parties."
Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, while we donot CSPESS any opinion about the impugned order, in the interest of justice, and in view of Section 422 of the Companies Act, 2013, we pass the following order:
The parties are directed to cooperate with the Tribunal during final hearing fixed on 25° April, 2017. The Tribunal will ensure disposal off the company petition on an early date, preferably by 15° May, 2017. Ifthe company petition is not disposed off by 18° May, 2017, the interim order passed on 3° March, 2017 shall stand vacated. However, for no fault of the parties, if the matter is not disposed off within the time prescribed above, the parties may approach this Appellate Tribunal for interim relief
The appeal is disposed off with the abovesaid observations and directions.
Na cost.
(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson
(Mr. Balvinder Singh) Member (Technical)
ore
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free