9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd finally by consent of the parties. 3. The Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The Petitioner was earlier known as M/s. E-Billing Solutions Limited. The said name was changed to M/s. Ingenico e-Payments India Private Limited. Subsequently, the name of the Petitioner was changed to its present name. 4. By an Order dated 8th October 2018, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Mumbai had sanctioned a scheme of amalgamation between Tech Process Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. ("Transferer Company") and the Petitioner ("Transferee Company") and their respective shareholders. 5. The said NCLT Order, along with the sanctioned scheme, was received by the Petitioner on 16th October 2018. Upon obtaining the same, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent No. 2 seeking a stay of the said Order dated 14th September 2021. It is the case of the Petitioner that this application of the Petitioner has not been decided and has been kept pending. 11. It is further the case of the Petitioner that the final hearing in the said Appeal was held on 7th June 2023 and the Petitioner filed its written submissions on 7th August 2023. However, till date, Respondent No. 2 has not passed any order in the said Appeal. 12. Further, despite the same, Respondent No. 3 addressed a letter dated 23rd January 2024 to ICICI Bank Ltd. directing provisional attachment of the Petitioner's bank account for recovery of stamp duty and penalty. 13. By a letter dated 6th February 2024, addressed to the Petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner, submitted that, despite the Petitioner being diligent in filing its Appeal before Respondent No. 2, and despite a hearing having been taken place in the said Appeal on 7th June 2023 and written submissions filed on 7th August 2023, even after a period of more than two years from the date of filing of the said Appeal, the same has not been decided by Respondent No. 2. On the other hand, the Respondents have issued the said Demand Notice dated 16th March 2022 and have also directed attachment and freezing of the Petitioner's bank account by the said letter dated 23rd January 2014. It is the submission of Mr. Naphade that the Respondents ought not to have taken such coercive steps till the disposal of the Appeal. He also submitted that gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id Demand Notice dated 16th March 2022 and the said letter dated 23rd January 2024 remains stayed. In our view, Mr. Naphade is correct in submitting that grave prejudice is caused to the Petitioner. On one hand, the said Appeal is not being decided for a period of more than two years and, on the other hand, coercive action like issuing the Demand Notice dated 16th March 2022 and the letter dated 23rd January 2024 are taken against the Petitioner pursuant to the very Order which is challenged in the said Appeal. We would, however, like to clarify that we have not gone into the merits of the matter and, therefore, all contentions of the parties on merits will be kept open. 18. In the aforesaid circumstances, we pass the following Orders: a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
