Sonia Khosla vs Sameer Kudsia & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 36, 43-47 of 2016
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal will not grant directions in anticipation of future proceedings, aimed at prospectively binding the adjudicating forum in a fresh company petition to follow the directions earlier given in a different appeal, where the application seeks only to enforce directions already passed and not to obtain any substantive relief.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Mrs. Sonia Khosla (Through L.R.) ...Appellant. Versus Mr. Sameer Kudsia & Ors. ...Respondents. Present: For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Khosla, Mr. Shoron Paul, Mr. Shenoy Das, Advocates. For Respondent: None.
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
08.03.2021 Heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant. He states that this
Application is filed to reiterate directions given earlier and directions to enforce
directions already passed. The purpose of the Application is as specified in
Paragraph 7 of the Application, which reads as under:
"7. That the purpose of this Application is only to seek specific directions from this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal to prevent future appeals, by seeking a direction to the effect that all the directions passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the present Appeal in relation to C.P. No. 114 of 2007 would apply with equal vigour to CP No. 54 of 2021 file in lieu of CP No. 114 of 2007, such as, but not restricted to:
a) That no application under Section 8 shall be entertained.
b) That no frivolous application shall be entertained from either side.
2 c) That the Respondent, having forfeited his right to file any documents in support of his position, shall not be allowed to do so.
d) That the CP shall be heard on day-to-day basis.
e) That the adjudication of the CP shall be completed within 3 months."
2. Learned Counsel for the Applicant is referring to the orders passed to
submit that as to why this Application should be entertained. However, we have
gone through the Application and the object of the Application is clear from
Paragraph 7 as reproduced above. We are of the view that such orders as are
being sought for future and orders in anticipation just to enforce directions
already passed, is not called for.
There is no substance in the Application. The Application is dismissed.
[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)
Basant B./md
Company Appeal (AT) 36, 43-47 of 2016 I.A. No. 444 of 2021
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