Unique Estate Development Company & Anr vs Satwant Singh & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Unique State Development Company Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Appellants Versus Satwant Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Present For Appellants : Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Viren Sharma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhijit Sinha, Mrs. Pooja Mehra Saigal, Mr. Nipun Gupta, Mr. Ishank Jha, Advocates for R-1 Ms. Roohina Dua, Mr. Randeep Sachdeva, Mr. Lzafeer Ahmad, Advocates for R-2

ORDER

29.09.2023: Heard Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee, Ld. Sr. Counsel assisted by

Mr. Viren Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Krishnendu Datta,

Ld. Sr. Counsel assisted by Mrs. Pooja Mehra Saigal, Ld. Counsel who has

entered appearance on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 in CA (AT) No. 151 of

2023 whereas Mr. Abhijit Sinha, Ld. Counsel has appeared on behalf of the

Respondent No. 1 in CA (AT) No. 152 of 2023.

The present appeal has been filed under Section 421 of the Companies

Act, 2013, primarily against order dated 02.08.2023 and 09.08.2023 passed by

National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (herein after

referred to as NCLT) on CA No. 128 of 2023 filed in CP No. 110/Chd/Pb/2020.

The order passed in CA No. 128 of 2023 dated 02.08.2023 and 09.08.2023 is

reproduced herein below respectively:

-2-

CA No. 128/2023.

"On last date of hearing, it is stated by learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 that reply will be filed within 10 days, but the same has not been filed because there is bereavement in the family of one of the Directors. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 prayed for two days' time for filing the reply. Let the same be filed within two days with an advance copy to counsel opposite.

In the meantime, Board of Directors or any party to this application shall not do any further action or step out without the prior permission of this Tribunal.

Learned counsel for all the parties are directed to complete pleadings in all the applications, failing which arguments will be heard. List on 09.08.2023 at 2.00 PM".

CA No. 128/2023.

"Reply on behalf of Respondent No. 1 has been filed vide diary No. 02148/1 dated 07.08.2023. The same is taken on record. Rejoinder to the reply of respondent No. 1 has been filed vide diary No. 02148/2 dated 07.08.2023. The same is also taken on record. In the meantime learned counsel for the parties are directed to file short written submissions with relevant law, if any within two weeks by exchanging the copies with each other. Interim order to be continued till the next date of hearing. List on 23.08.2023 at 2:00 P.M".

Mr. Mukherjee, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant assailing the impugned

order submitted that by the said order the Ld. NCLT has virtually restrained

the company to properly function and for each and every matter this order

indicates that prior permission is required to be obtained from the NCLT.

However, on perusal of the impugned order it is evident that the said order was

passed purely as an interim arrangement. Moreover, no right of the appellant is

being taken away due to the reason that the Ld. NCLT has already recorded in

the impugned order that in any such urgency prior permission can be -3-

obtained. It is not case of the appellant that any such permission has been

refused.

We are of the view that since the impugned order has been passed on

Interlocutory application i.e. I.A. No. 128 of 2023 only as an stop gap

arrangement which is purely temporary in nature without interfering with the

order the appeal can be disposed of even without notice to other Respondents

with an observation that Ld. NCLT may take appropriate steps so that CA No.

128 of 2023 be disposed of at the earliest preferable within four weeks from the

date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, after hearing both the

parties.

It is recorded that while passing the present order we have not dealt with

merit of the case and as such Ld. NCLT while deciding the Interlocutory

application without being influenced with this order may pass appropriate

order in accordance with law but we expect that order may be passed within

four weeks from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order.

Though in the present appeal the impugned order has been assailed, Mr.

Mukherjee, Ld. Sr. Counsel admits that the Appellant is not a party before the

NCLT. In such view of the matter liberty is granted to the appellant to file

appropriate application in the case before NCLT. If such application is filed, we

expect that within four weeks from the date of filing such application Ld. NCLT

may pass appropriate order after hearing the parties in accordance with law. -4-

With above observation, the appeal stands disposed of.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar] Member (Judicial)

[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical)

sr/md Company Appeal (AT) No. 151-152 of 2023