9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to as the 'Tribunal' for short) in Company Petition No.42/2011. By the impugned judgement, while the Tribunal answered the oppression and mismanagement in favour of appellant and held that the company petition was maintainable only with respect to the 1st respondent and 2nd respondent has no locus standi to join in his individual capacity to file the company petition but directed the appellant company to appoint the same very 2nd respondent as Director of the appellant company. On 10th February, 2017 when the matter was taken up the Appellate Court passed the following order:- "The appellant has challenged the order dated 31st of January 2017 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench whereby the Tribunal obser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia) Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 21st March 2011 and in regard to the 2nd petitioner (2nd appellant herein) the said Company Petition is not maintainable. After some arguments, learned counsel for the appellants sought permission to withdraw the appeal to enable the appellants to file a fresh Company Petition under section 241 and 242 of the Companies Act 2013 with regard to 'Oppression and Mismanagement if committed after the appellants become the shareholders of the company. Leamed counsel for the appellants further submitted that in the meantime, as ordered by the Tribunal in the impugned order dated 31st January 2017, 2nd appellant be allowed to continue as director. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of 1st to 6th respondents raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny. For the reasons aforesaid the impugned judgment in so far the direction contained in Clause 4(iv), which reads as follows, is set aside:- "iv) The Respondent No. I Company is directed to appoint the second petition as Director of Respondent No. I company in accordance with its Articles of Association within a reasonable time. v) Interim orders dated 10.6.2011 stands vacated and CA Nos 140 and 141 of 12 also stands dismissed with no order as to costs. " However, we make it clear that the impugned judgement dated 31.1.2017 passed in CP No.42/2017 or the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) No.78/2017 or the judgement passed by the Appellate Tribunal today in this Company Appeal (AT) No.57 of 2017 will not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
