Santhosh Raja Goud Cheekati vs Veera Vaishnavi Granite Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 215 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal, having granted the appellant full relief under Section 242(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 in the interest of the company, will not interfere with the appointment of the appellant's mother as Additional Director where the appellant's only grievance is that part of the lower order, since that appointment is an appropriate order the Tribunal may pass in exercise of its power under Section 242(1) having regard to all relevant facts.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Santhosh Raja Goud Cheekati ...Appellant
Vs.
Veera Vaishnavi Granite Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: - Mr. Rahul Unnikrishnan and Mr. Anuj Sarma, Advocates
For Respondent:-
ORDER
05.07.2018─ The appellant filed an application under Section 241 and 242
of the Companies Act read with Section 59 of the Companies Act alleging
'Oppression and Mismanagement' against the respondents. The 2nd
Respondent Mr. Bhopal Gaud, is the father of the Appellant and the 3rd
Respondent Smt. Rohini B.Gaud, is the mother of appellant who are also
shareholders of the 1st Respondent company. The National Company Law
Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad Bench, on hearing the parties held that the
removal of the Appellant as Director of the 2nd Respondent company in the
meeting held on 21st August 2017 is illegal and set aside the decision to restore
the appellant as the Director till next date of the Board of Directors Meeting.
The Tribunal also confirmed the appointment of 3rd Respondent (the mother) as
the Additional Director with a direction to transfer 50% of the shareholding to
the Petitioner in 1st Respondent company from the 3rd Respondent.
2. It is submitted that the appellant has no grievance against the impugned
judgement dated 15th May 2018 which has been allowed in his favour except a
part of it whereby his mother, 3rd Respondent has been made Additional
Director.
3. However, as under sub-section (1) of Section 242, it is always open to the
Tribunal to pass appropriate order as deemed fit and proper in a case in the interest of the company, having taken into consideration all relevant facts the
Tribunal while granted full relief to the appellant, who is the son of the 2nd
Respondent and 3rd Respondent, if allowed the 3rd respondent -mother to
function as Additional Director, we find no ground to interfere with the same.
In the absence of any merit, we dismiss the appeal with cost of Rs.
10,000/- to be paid by the Appellant in favour of the 3rd Respondent (his
Mother) within a month.
(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson
(Justice Bansi Lal Bhat) Member(Judicial) sm/uk
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