Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (8) TMI 672

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l of FL-11 Bar license, and has apparently authorized the 2nd petitioner as the Managing Director of the 1st petitioner company to seek issuance of license. May be true, the subject disputes are pending by and between the parties before the Tribunal. But, at the same time, the Hotel is run by the 1st petitioner company and any income generated to the account of the company will not in any manner prejudice the Directors. The apprehension voiced by the learned counsel appearing for the additional 3rd respondent is that, if the license is renewed in favour of the 2nd petitioner, it will cause irreparable injury to the additional 3rd respondent, since it will be treated as a right conferred on the 2nd petitioner. However, the said apprehens .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rincipally engaged in the business of owning and managing the Windsor Castle Hotel at Kottayam. The 2nd petitioner is allegedly the Managing Director of the 1st petitioner company. There are litigations pending before the National Company Law Tribunal at Chennai Bench. According to the petitioners, as per Exts. P2 and P3 judgments, the 2nd petitioner is vested with the power to manage the affairs of the petitioner company. Even though Special Leave Petitions were filed against Ext. P2 and P3 by the erstwhile Managing Director, viz., the additional 3rd respondent, they were dismissed as per Ext. P4. Accordingly, the Board of Directors meeting was held on 14.10.2016, and the 2nd petitioner was elected as the Managing Director, evident from Ex .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... holding that there is an interim order in CP No.9/2016 for an injunction restraining the 2nd petitioner from representing the 1st petitioner company as Managing Director, and it is not clear from the subsequent orders whether the above order is modified or not. Other circumstances are also pointed out to the effect that in order to transfer license from one person to another, it requires proper application, consent, affidavit and statements of transferor and transferee. However, the 2nd petitioner has not produced any documents so far and therefore, the application is not fit for consideration at this point of time. By stating so, the application is rejected. 4. The 2nd respondent has filed a statement, basically stating that in view of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... injury to the additional 3rd respondent and the subject dispute pending consideration. 7. After hearing the submissions made across the Bar and perusing the pleadings and the documents on record, one thing is not disputed, there was an interim order, Ext. P7, passed by the Tribunal, appointing Justice M. Ramachandran, former Judge of this Court to conduct the EOGM. It is also not in dispute that the EOGM was convened in accordance with the directives issued by the Tribunal and several decisions were taken. One among the resolutions adopted in the EOGM is in respect of the renewal of FL-11 Bar license, and has apparently authorized the 2nd petitioner as the Managing Director of the 1st petitioner company to seek issuance of license. May .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h law. 9. In view of the fact circumstances discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that Ext. P13 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I do so. Consequentially, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to re-consider the application submitted by the 2nd petitioner to renew FL-11 license of Hotel Windsor Castle, Kodimatha, Kottayam, as a properly constituted application, and if otherwise the application is in order and in accordance with law, I see no reason to decline the license. 10. I also make it clear that the distance rule provided under the judgment of the apex court referred to above shall also be verified vis-a-vis the nearest State or National Highway. I further make it clear that the renewal of license in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates