Zeba Rajesh Kohli vs Good House Keeping Co Pvt Ltd

IN THE MATTER OF: Zeba Rajesh Kohli ...Appellant Versus Good House Keeping co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anuj Tiwari, Mr. Girijapati Kaushal, Ms. Heena Kocher, Mr. Aditya Shukla and Ms. Aroshi Pal, Advocates. For Respondents : Ms. Meghna Rao, Advocate for R-5.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Oral)

21.02.2024 : This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.6.2022

passed by the Adjudicating Authority while dealing with CA No. 272 of 2022

and CA No. 276 of 2022. At the time of preliminary hearing held on

06.07.2022, this court passed the following order:

06.07.2022: Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. The Appellant has preferred this Appeal being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the orders dated 07.06.2022 in C.P. 168/MB/2022 and 16.06.2022 in CA 270/2022 CA 276/2022 in C.P. 168/MB/2022 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Court-I, Mumbai whereby and where under the Tribunal given liberty to file reply affidavit and the matter was directed to be listed on 06.07.2022.

2. Mr. Sridharan Agaram, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 5. Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, Advocate appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 4. They are directed to file hard copy of the reply affidavit within three weeks.

3. Issue notice on Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 through Speed Post as well as email (Both Mode). Requisites along with process fee be filed by 08.07.2022. The Appellant to provide email address of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

4. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to file hard copy of the reply affidavit within four weeks.

5. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed by the Appellant within one week thereafter. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant is also directed to file hard copy of the up-to-date order sheet passed by the NCLT in the matter, before the next date of hearing. List the Appeal 'For Admission (After Notice)' on 17th August, 2022.

In the meanwhile, status quo prevailing as on today in the matter shall be maintained by the parties."

2. The said order is continuing till date. During the pendency of this

appeal, respondent no. 2 (Yasmin Mohammed ali Karmali) died on 18.8.2022

and respondent no. 3 (Mohammedali Gulamali Karmali) died on 19.07.2023.

The application bearing IA No. 4274 and 4276 of 2022 has been filed by

respondent no.5 (Anjum Karmali), daughter of Respondent no.2 and 3, in

which she has prayed that she may be allowed to be substituted in place of

respondent no. 2 on the ground that respondent no. 2 has left behind a

registered will dated 13.08.2021 (document no. 6370/1/13, registered with

Sub-Registrar Office, SR Mumbai City) and bequeathed her share and

beneficiary interest in the company (Respondent No. 1). This application has

been contested by the appellant, inter alia, on the ground that respondent no.

2 and 3 have also left behind another daughter, namely, Nahid Mashoqullah

who is presently resident of Karachi, Pakistan and therefore, until and unless

a probate is obtained by respondent no.5 of the Will dated 13.08.2021, the

Comp. App. (AT) No. 100 & 101 of 2022 & I.A. No. 4274, 4276 of 2022 2 of 4 same cannot be relied upon for the purpose of transfer of share of respondent

no.2 in favour of respondent no.5.

3. In reply to the argument, counsel for respondent no.5 has submitted

that the other daughter (Nahid) has sworn an affidavit dated 02.09.2022 to

the effect that respondent no.5 is the only legal heir, meaning thereby she has

waived her rights in the property owned by the late respondent no.2.

4. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. In our considered opinion, the impugned order is totally silent on the

issue of stay, therefore, it would be just and expedient if the matter is

remanded back to the Tribunal for passing a categoric order on the

applications filed by the appellant regarding the interim orders, after

assigning reasons.

6. Counsel for respondent no.5 has also submitted that because of this

appeal pending before this court, the proceedings in the main Company

Petition filed before the Tribunal has been adjourned sine die. We are though

maintaining the innocuous order dated 16.06.2022 remanding the matter

back to the Tribunal to decide the application i.e. CA No. 272 of 2022 and CA

No. 276 of 2022 by a specific order about the stay which has been prayed for

by the appellant. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on

01st March, 2024.

7. It is needless to mention that the proceedings in the main case pending

before the Tribunal which has adjourned sine die shall stand revived with the

appearance of the parties by virtue of this order. It is also made clear that the

order passed by this Court on 06.07.2022 by which the parties have been Comp. App. (AT) No. 100 & 101 of 2022 & I.A. No. 4274, 4276 of 2022 3 of 4 directed to maintain the status quo shall prevail till the application for stay

filed by appellant is decided by the Tribunal in one way or other. It is needless

to mention that the issue regarding substitution and other issues on merits

are kept open for the Tribunal to decide in accordance with law.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical) hk/kam

Comp. App. (AT) No. 100 & 101 of 2022 & I.A. No. 4274, 4276 of 2022 4 of 4