9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Padmanabha Swamy , Member ( J ) 1. Under Consideration is an Application filed by the Original Petitioner, vide IA No. 345/2019 in CP No. 148/241/HDB/2018 under Rule 82 of NCLT Rules, 2016 seeking following reliefs: i) Permitting the Petitioner to withdraw Company Petition No. 148/241/HDB/2018, Interlocutory Application No. 296 of 2019 and Interlocutory Application No.180 of 2019 along with all other Pending Interlocutory Applications filed by the Petitioner on the file of this Tribunal in the interest of justice and equity. ii) Any other relief this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 2. As the present Application and the Main Company Petition revolves around th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 346/2019. Matter was taken up for hearing on being mentioned. The prayer in IA No. 346/2019 was to advance the date of hearing in IA No. 345/2019, the prayer in which was to permit the Petitioner to withdraw the main Company Petition. Upon hearing the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel and on being satisfied by the reasons stated for advancement, this Tribunal directed the registry to put IA No. 345/2019 along with all the connected Applications on 10.05.2019. 6. During the hearing held on 10.05.2019, IA No. 345/2019 was taken up. This Tribunal directed all the counsels representing Respondents in IA No. 345/2019 and Applicant in IA No. 312/2019 to file their submissions, if any, by way of reply and the matter was posted to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;.........So far as C.P. No. 148/241/HDB/2018 is concerned, the Tribunal may allow the withdrawal of the Company Petition but in case of refusal, it will give reasons and will not pass any interim order'. 9. Counsel for the Petitioner in its written submissions inter-alia submitted the following: i. That the Petitioner has an absolute and unconditional right to ask for an unconditional withdrawal. ii. That there is no requirement on the Tribunal to examine the record of settlement agreement. iii. That the Respondent No. 5 is precluded from raising objections to Petitioner's withdrawal. iv. That the third party Applicant is not a party to the present Petition. v. That the Application for withdrawing the Company Petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Kumar Singh vs. Vijay Pal Singh ( (2018) 12 SCC 584). d) Baligar Sahamulia vs. Baligara Fakruddin Sab, ((2005) 10 SCC 214) e) Bijayananda Patanaik vs. Satrughna Sahu & Ors. ((1964) 2 SCR 538) f) S.K Hussain vs. M.G. Kannaiah ( (1981) 3 SCC 71) g) Jal Mahal Resorts (P) Ltd vs. KP. Sharma ((2014) 8 SCC 866). 11. Counsel for R2, R3 & R6 have adopted the written submissions filed by R1. 12. Counsel (Mr. D.V.A.S Ravi Prasad) filed written submissions for Respondent No. 4 stating that the withdrawal of the Company Petition may be allowed for the following reasons: i. That the withdrawal is in the best interest of R4. ii. That Objections by Respondent No. 5 are untenable. iii. That Third Party Applicant is not a party to the Peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by R5 and since Alanda and others in collusion with Petitioners and R1 to R3 and R6 are trying to press the instant Application, the same is liable to be dismissed. v. That the settlement between the Petitioner and the R1 for an amount of Rs. 65 Crores doubt on nature and legality of the transaction occurred between them. vi. That R5 was not served with the copy of the settlement deed which is against the principle of Natural Justice. 14. Heard both the sides and perused the record. 15. It is a settled position of Law that when a Petitioner seeks for a withdrawal simpliciter, the Tribunal will not continue with the said Petition and in order to put an end to the matters complained of it would be in the interest of all the partie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (AT) No. 121, 122 & 123 of 2019. 18. As held by the Hon'ble NCLAT in VLS Finance vs. Southend Infrastructure Pvt Ltd "21.1 .....when a claim of settlement between warring group is stated and simple withdrawal is asked, NCLT cannot be asked to continue with Petition on a rowing enquiry at the instance of a non-member. Further the Hon'ble Supreme court in a catena of decisions, held that when a plaintiff prays for withdrawal of the suit without asking any leave to file a fresh suit on the same subject matter, should always be permitted especially when such withdrawal is sought without asking for anything more. Further as per provisions of Section 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 the Tribunal may, with a view to bringing to an end the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
