9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edika Gandhi , Advocates for R1 Mr. Vaibhav Sharma , Advocate for R 14 , 20 Mr. Anand Chhibar, Sr. Advocate, Mr Swapnil Gupta, Mr Ujjal Banerjee, Mr Anmol Sehgal, Mr Sajal Jain, Advocate for R7 and R8. ORDER This appeal is against an impugned order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the Ld. NCLT, Chandigarh in Company Petition NO.2/CHD/Hry/2025. The brief facts as alleged by the appellant are as follows:- a) In the year 1965 M/s Khanna Papers was started by the Appellant and in the year 1985 Respondent No.1 company was incorporated by appellant alongwith his brothers ; b) in the year 2012-2013 the appellant and Respondent No.7 viz. the wife of the appellant gifted their shares to their sons viz. respondent No.3(elder) and respondent No.8 (y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oked and suspended; f) on that day the appellant sent an email to Responder No.3 asking him to meet to settle all issues but Respondent No.3 communicated to appellant about his replacement with himself as a Principal Trustee in the Trust and even sent an email through the HR Department stating interalia the appellant has been relieved of his executive duties due to his ill health. The appellant disputed his replacement and asserted himself as Principal Trustee for his lifetime. Such communication qua replacement of appellant was also made to independent directors of the Respondent No.1 Company, hence the appellant asked the existing Board to resign; g) as per Trust Deed the right to amend the Trust Deed was with Respondent No.3. The app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the rival contentions we find the impugned order notes of an order dated 19.12.2024 passed by Ld. NCLT with consent as follows : "The present application has been filed under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016. However, during the course of arguments it is conceded by learned counsel for the respondent that the said agenda item No.3 will be amended and she will be considered for reappointment, in case if she is not reappointed then it is agreed upon by learned counsel for respondent that the stop gap arrangement will be done by appointing another Director from the list of three persons with their CVs which will be provided by the applicant through her counsel during the course of day and it is agreed upon that tomorrow a Board Meeting will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rector of the lending banks/financial institutions and reappointment of independent directors. However, in respect of reappointment of independent directors, it would be a stop gap arrangement, since the matter is partly heard and has been listed for final hearing on 09.01.2025. It is also stated by learned senior counsel for the respondent that the board meeting fixed on 28.12.2024 will be held as per schedule, but the voting rights of the applicant No. 2 will not be freezed in view of his agreeing to appointment of the nominee director and reappointment of independent directors as stated above. 7. We also find a Power of Attorney, allegedly executed by the appellant herein in favour of one Brij Raj Singh (not connected with Respondent No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t's legality. As such till the further order the operation of the amendment dated 27.12.2024 done in the trust deed dated 17.09.2022 done by Rahul Khanna etc. stands stayed i.e. till the written statement is filed in this case and arguments are more deeply is advanced. 9. In another connected matter viz. Brij Mohan Khanna and Rahul Khanna Family Trust Vs Brij Mohan Khanna etc. CIS No.CS/20/2025 the Ld. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amritsar has observed as under:- "In light of the order already passed in the connected case the Court is also aware of the fact that trust was created for the benefit of the beneficiaries which are plaintiffs in this case, therefore, even the defendant Brij Mohan Khanna is also directed and reminded of his du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ps, and Respondent No.1 company's operational stability. 13. This Tribunal in Archer Power System Pvt Ltd V. Cascade Energy Pvt Ltd and Or has upheld a similar order restoring status quo ante pending the company petition and has held as follows : - "41..... similarly the status quo as made is only with a view to regulate the conduct of the company's affairs during the pendency of the case so that no contesting party takes the advantage during the period detrimental to the other party. The status quo restored as on 27.04.2017 (date of petition) as directed by the NCLT Chennai till the matter is under consideration cannot be found faulted with>" 14. The impugned order has been passed by the Ld. NCLT in exercise of its powers under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
