TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent No. 2 Company would not have any locus standi to file the present application, more particularly when the management of the respondent no. 2 Company has already been suspended in view of the order passed by the NCLT in Company petition (IB) No. 299 of 2018, and the Resolution Professional is the only competent person to represent the Company. The present application is dismissed as being not maintainable and the applicant being not competent to file the present application. - MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2020 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18332 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 1-12-2020 - HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI FOR THE PETITIONER : MANAN K PANERI. MR DHRUVIN DOSSANI FOR MR VISHWAS K SHAH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at all the contentions of both the sides are kept open and this Court has not examined the present petition on its merits. Notice is discharged. ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2017 In view of order passed in the main matter being Special Civil Application No. 18332 of 2017, present application would not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. 3. It may further be noted that the said Special Civil Application was filed by the respondent No. 2 (original petitioner) against the respondent No. 1 Bank challenging the demand notice issued by the respondent Bank under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and all subsequent steps taken thereunder. The Court in the said petition while issuing Notice on 06.10.2017 had passed the fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dited to the Bank without fail. Irrespective of such observation, respondents are at liberty to come forward with their grievance if any, so as to modify such order. Direct Service is permitted. 4. The present application has been filed by the applicant in the capacity of the Director of the respondent No. 2 Company (original petitioner) on the ground that pursuant to the said order passed by the Court on 06.10.2017, the applicant being the Director of the Company had issued a demand draft dated 13.10.2017 of ₹ 5,00,000/ to the banker UCO Bank in favor of the respondent No. 1 Canara Bank. It is further the case of the applicant that after the dismissal of the said petition as withdrawn, a Company petition being (IB) NO. 299 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent No.2 who was the original petitioner. Apart from the fact that there was no order sought at the time of withdrawal of the said petition by the learned Advocate for the petitioner with regard to the said demand draft furnished on behalf of the respondent No. 2 Company (original petitioner), as rightly submitted by the learned Advocate Mr. Dossani appearing for the respondent Canara Bank, the applicant who claims to be the Director for the respondent No. 2 Company would not have any locus standi to file the present application, more particularly when the management of the respondent no. 2 Company has already been suspended in view of the order passed by the NCLT in Company petition (IB) No. 299 of 2018, and the Resolution Prof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
