9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l ) And [ Ajai Das Mehrotra ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Mr. Dhiren R Dave , Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh , Ms. Anushree Kapadia , Mr. M. T. Reddy , Advocates ORDER ( Hybrid Mode ) This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated 22.02.2024 whereby an application of recall of an order dated 11.01.2024 was dismissed. 2. It is the submission of the Ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid since the Respondent No. 7 had filed the valuation report; thus was made a party to the Company Petition before the Ld. NCLT. However vide order dated 11.01.2024, the Ld. NCLT passed the following order : CP/29(AHM)2022 It is seen that Respondent No. 7 who is happened to be valuer has given valuation report, has been added one of the Respondent and specifically stated that no relief has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent No. 7 " . 5. Vide this order the Ld. NCLT had prima facie found the Respondent No. 7 was unnecessarily made a party to the petition, hence directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- with it in the shape of FDR and at the time of final adjudication if it was to be found that Respondent No.7 was not a proper and necessary party the said amount shall be released to Respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner had got fabricated such valuation report. 7. Except the above there is no other pleading qua role of the Respondent No. 7 except he only had prepared a valuation report. Further admittedly no relief was claimed against Respondent No. 7 as he was a Proforma Respondent. Hence, we are of the opinion the Ld. NCLT had rightly observed there was nothing on record to suggest Respondent No.7 was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
