TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1/2019 as well as while filing CA No.242/2020 order of dismissal whereof is impugned in this appeal. Even in this appeal, no reference whatsoever is made to the claim made as far back as in 2011 for transfer of shares to own name and failure therein. Such conduct of the appellant alone is sufficient for dismissal of this appeal. The appellant having preferred this appeal instead of approaching the Company Judge for preponement of hearing of CA No.491/2019 and having taken up the time of this Court and especially after having indulged in concealment of the history of its claim as aforesaid, is not entitled to any indulgence. The present is clearly a case of re-litigation by the appellant of its claim as made in CA No.2436/2011 and which itself was barred by time and belated and was withdrawn. While considering the question of grant of any interim relief to the appellant by way of CA No.242/2020, during the pendency of CA No.491/2019, the merits of CA No.491/2019 definitely have to be considered and once no merit is found in CA No.491/2019, the question of granting any interim relief to the appellant does not arise. Appeal dismissed. - CO. APP. 9/2020 - - - Dated:- 22-5-2020 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection Memo dated 20th June, 1997 stating that vide order dated 22nd May, 1997 in Company Petition No.191/1997 of the Company Judge of this Court provisional liquidator had been appointed with respect to CRB; (iv) that the shares having been bought on 26th April, 1997 i.e. prior to 22nd May, 1997 when provisional liquidator was appointed for CRB and also prior to direction dated 6th June, 1997 of respondent No.2 Reserve Bank of India (RBI) by which Directors of CRB were restrained from disposing of properties of CRB, the appellant is legally entitled to have the said shares transferred to its name; (v) that the appellant due to prolonged illness of its Managing Director could not take further steps in the matter of transfer of the said shares to its name; (vi) that vide order dated 25th November, 2010 in CA No.176/1998 of Vikram Commercial Limited (Vikram) which had bought 5,500 shares of RIL sold by CRB, from the clearing house of DSE, during the same settlement period i.e. 12th April, 1997 to 25th April, 1997, it was held that the order dated 22nd May, 1997 appointing a provisional liquidator of CRB shall not come in the way of Vikram getting the shares registered in its name; (v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rights shares. 7. The Company Judge, as aforesaid, vide the impugned order dated 14th May, 2020, has disposed of CA No.242/2020 of the appellant recording that vide order dated 13th May, 2020 on applications of other similarly situated as the appellant, to enable maximum advantage to be reaped from the said rights issue, Karvy had been appointed as a Court Commissioner to sell the entitlement of rights issue of RIL shares as available to CRB, at maximum price available. The Company Judge thus, in the impugned order dated 14th May, 2020 on CA No.242/2020, held that in view of the order dated 13th May, 2020, the principal relief sought by the appellant in CA No.242/2020 could not be granted and left the appellant to its rights and remedies in CA No.491/2019, which remains pending before the Company Judge. 8. Though the contention of the appellant in the appeal, that since it was not a party to the order dated 13th May, 2020, it could not be denied the relief as sought in CA No.242/2020 entitling it to apply for rights shares, especially when its CA No.491/2019 was pending considering, for the reason of the order dated 13th May, 2020, appeared attractive but the counsel f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by OL. 11. From the aforesaid documents produced by the counsel for OL, it emerges that the appellant, after the alleged purchase of shares in 1997 and refusal of transfer thereof to its name soon thereafter, remained quiet for nearly 14 years, till about October, 2011 when CA No.2436/2011 was filed for directions for transfer of the shares to its name and which application was opposed by the counsel for OL and probably owing to which opposition, the then counsel for the appellant deemed it appropriate to withdraw the relief claimed of transfer of shares from the name of CRB to the name of the appellant with liberty to pursue the claim before the OL. The appellant conveniently concealed the said facts, while filing CA No.491/2019 as well as while filing CA No.242/2020 order of dismissal whereof is impugned in this appeal. Even in this appeal, no reference whatsoever is made to the claim made as far back as in 2011 for transfer of shares to own name and failure therein. Such conduct of the appellant alone is sufficient for dismissal of this appeal. 12. We have however enquired from the counsel for the appellant, whether not the claim, even if any of the appellant with respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
