Rahul Dilip Shah & Ors vs Katalyst Software Services Limited & ...
- CitationComp. App. (AT) No. 13 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal is dismissed as infructuous because the appellants have already filed a restoration application before the NCLT on the same subject-matter, which is pending and listed for further consideration; dismissal of the appeal does not foreclose the appellants from pursuing that restoration application to its conclusion in accordance with law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Rahul Dilip Shah & Ors. ....Appellants
Vs.
Katalyst Software Services Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents
Present: For Appellants: Mr. Varun Garg, Ms. Nitya Prabhakar, Advocates For Respondents: Ms. Namrata Langade, Advocate
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
15.02.2024: The Ld. Counsel for the Appellants brings to the notice of
this Tribunal that CA/02(MB)/2024 (Restoration Application/Petition in
CP/925(MB)/2020 was filed before the National Company Law Tribunal,
Mumbai Bench, Court-IV and on 23.01.2024, the Ld. Counsel for the
Respondent therein was directed to file Reply within two weeks by duly serving
a copy of Reply to the other side, at least two days in advance, before the next
date of hearing. Also, it comes to be known that the matter is slated for
consideration on 04.04.2024.
This Tribunal ongoing through the impugned order dated 04.01.2024,
passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court-IV in CP
No. 925 of 2020 is of the considered view that the Appellants herein have filed
Restoration application (CA 02(MB)/2024) in CP/925(MB)/2020 and the same
is coming up for further consideration on 04.04.2024. -2-
As such the instant CA (AT) No. 13 of 2024 has become an infructuous and
otiose one. Viewed in that perspective the instant CA (AT) No. 13 of 2024 is
dismissed as an infructuous and otiose one. No costs.
Before parting with the case, this Tribunal makes it lucidly quite clear
that the dismissal of the instant CA (AT) No. 13 of 2024 will not preclude the
Petitioners in Restoration Petition (CA/02(MB)/2024) in CP/925(MB)/2020 to
take its logical end before the Tribunal, of course in the manner known to law
and in accordance with law if they so desire/advise.
Connecting pending Interlocutory applications if any are closed.
[Justice M. Venugopal] Member (Judicial)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)
sr/md Comp. App. (AT) No. 13 of 2024
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