Yashdeep Trexim Pvt. Ltd vs Rainy Park Suppliers Pvt. Ltd

Yashdeep Trexim Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Pekon Building, 4th Floor, Block GP, Kolkata 700091 Vs 1. Rainy park Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondents 89, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata-700027

2. Mooldhan Advisory Systems Pvt. Ltd. 14/2 Burdwan Road, Kolkata-700027

3. Acme Consultants Pvt. Ltd. 14/2 Burdwan Road, Kolkata-700027

4. Namokar Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. 14/2 Burdwan Road, Kolkata-700027

5. Jai JaiDealcom Pvt. Ltd. 13, Noormal Lohia Lane, Kolkata-700007

6. Toshniwal Plywood Pvt. Ltd. 13, Noormal Lohia Lane,Kolkata-700007

7. Watermark Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. 110, Makers Chamber V, Nariman Point Mumbai 400021

8. Libra Retailers Pvt. Ltd. 24(2) Harrington Mansion, 8, Ho Chi Min Sarani, 1st Floor, Kolkata-700071

9. Govind Sarada 21A, Shakespeare Sarani, 2nd Floor Kolkata 700017

Company Appeal (AT) No. 284 of 2017 Also at 14/2, Burdwan Road, Kolkata-700027

10. Amit Kumar Sarda 21A, Shakespeare Sarani, 2nd Floor Kolkata 700017 Also at 14/2, Burdwan Road, Kolkata-700027

11. Shri Prakash Toshniwal 89, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata 700001

12. Rahul Toshniwal 13, Noormal Lohia Lane, Kolkata 700007

13. Lalit Toshiwal 13, Noormal Lohia Lane, Kolkata 700007

14. Shyam Sunder Vyas 1206, Station Road, Napasar, Bikaner, Rajasthan 334201

15. Shobhanand Jha 284, Maharaja Nandkumar Road Kolkata 700035

16. Sashikant Jha 70, Golf Link, New Delhi 110003

17. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Limited 84/89, Zarib Chauki Kalpi Road, Kanpur 208012

18. Neeta Sarda 187, Rabindra Sarani, 1st Floor, Room No. 47, Kolkatta-700007

19. Sudhir Kumar Singh Dhobi Patti Lane, Kishangunj-855108

Company Appeal (AT) No. 284 of 2017 -3-

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Amit S. Chadha. Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atanu Mukherjee, Ms. Srishti Govit, Mr. Sahil Mongia and Mr. Sujit Kumar Keshri, Advocates. For Respondent: Ms. Purti Marwaha, Advocate for Respondent No. 17.

ORDER

24.11.2017: Heard counsel for appellant. Perused impugned order dated

06.07.2017 passed in I.A. 223/17 in C.P 942/2012 by National Company Law

Tribunal Kolkata Bench ('NCLT' in short). It appears that in the company

petition which was before the NCLT when it had earlier come up before

Company Law Board interim order was passed on 26th November, 2012 to

maintain status quo with reference to the shareholding as well as fixed assets

and the composition of board of directors of respondent no. 1 company.

However, subsequently on the motion of Respondent No. 17 the ad interim

order dated 26th November, 2012 was amended to the extent of withdrawing of

interim order with regard to the fixed assets on 15th January, 2013. Petitioner

had given no objection while the Order was being passed on 15th January,

2013.

It appears that due to subsequent developments, the appellant filed I.A

No. 223 of 2017 seeking restoration of the earlier order of Company Law Board

which in substance was seeking status quo on the fixed assets also. The

application has been rejected vide impugned order by the learned NCLT on the

Company Appeal (AT) No. 284 of 2017 -4-

basis that once having agreed to the modification, the appellant cannot be

permitted to backtrack and is estopped.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the application which

was now moved was with reference to the subsequent events which should

have been taken note of and the impugned order was wrong.

However, when the prayers of the concern application are pursued (Pg.

263 of the PaperBook), they read as under:

"In the circumstances, your petitioner most humbly pray that this

Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal be pleased to pass the

following orders:

a. The order dated January 15, 2013 passed in C.P. No.942 of 2012

(Yashdeep Trexim Private Limited V Rainey Park Suppliers Limited &

Ors.) be recalled and/or set aside;

b. The order dated November 26, 2012 is restored to its original with

immediate effect;

c. Ad-interim order in terms of prayers above;

d. Such further or other order or orders be passed and/ or direction

or directions be given as to this Hon'ble tribunal may deem fit and

proper;

Company Appeal (AT) No. 284 of 2017 -5-

And for this act of kindness, your petitioner as in duty bound, shall

ever pray."

In view of these prayers, the impugned order cannot be faulted with.

What was sought was restoration of earlier order of C.L.B modification of which

had been acceded to. We do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned

order. However the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant may be given opportunity to file fresh I.A seeking interim relief in the

pending Company Petition on the basis of the subsequent events. The

appellant may file such I.A. if so advised and the learned NCLT will decide the

same on its own merits uninfluenced by the earlier above impugned order.

Looking to the fact that the Company Petition is pending since 2012,

keeping in view provisions of the Section 422 of the Companies Act, 2013, we

expect and hope that the NCLT will make efforts to dispose off the main

Company Petition itself on its merits at the earliest.

(Justice A.I.S. Cheema) Member (Judicial)

(Justice Bansi Lal Bhat) (Balvinder Singh) Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)

sh/gc

Company Appeal (AT) No. 284 of 2017