Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

D. Direct urgent hearing of CP No.175/241-242/NCLT/AHM/2017; and E. Pass any other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit." Learned senior counsel while referring to the aforesaid prayers has further drawn our attention to the fining recorded by the NCTT in the aforesaid order. Finding has been recorded in paras 27 to 30 which are reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Findings;
27.We have considered submission made by both the sides and material on record. It is noted that earlier Respondent No.2 had filed oppression and mismanagement petition against the Petitioner vide CP No.15 of 2017 which was dismissed by NCLT on 15.06.2017. Various observations were made in the order as regard to the conduct and management of affairs of the Corporate Debtor by the Respondent No.2 since 2005. Against this order, the Respondent No.2 preferred an appeal before Hon'ble NCLAT, however, order of the Hon'ble NCLAT confirmed the order of NCLT in Appeal No. CA(AT) 237 of 2017 order dated 12.03.2018. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also confirmed the order of Hon'ble NCLAT vide its order dated 18.05.2018. The Applicant herein had filed an oppression and mismanagement petition against the Company Appeal (AT) No.148 of 2022 Respondent No.2 under Section 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 on 16.08.2017. IA 67 of 2018 and IA 68 of 2018 were filed on 20.02.2018. The Respondent No.2 in the capacity of lender of the Corporate Debtor had filed a petition under Section 7 of IB code, 2016 being CP (IB) No.111 of 20158 (TP No.76/2019) ON 16.02.2018. Thus, it is evident that the Applicant had filed a petition under Section 241-242 of the Companies act, 2013 before filing of a petition under Section 7 of IB Code, 2016 by the Respondent No.2. It is also noted that this petition had been filed before order of Hon'ble NCLAT duly confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of petition filed by the Respondent No.2 against the Applicant. From the perusal of the grounds raised in CP No.175/2017 alongwith amendments sought therein through IA No.67 of 2018, it is seen that a number of issues raised therein stand adjudicated in favour of the Applicant. It is also noteworthy that respondent No.2 has acted upon by reversing the share pledge invocation transactions. However, the fact remains that since 2005 Respondent No.2 is in the management of the Respondent No.1 company and all its activity have been conducted under the guidance of board of directors controlled by the Respondent No.2, several allegations of mismanagement and self- serving actions by the Respondent No.2 to protect its interest as lender have been made. The fact remains that the project has remained incomplete and no viable solution could be found so far. In this background, from the written submissions filed before us by the Respondent No.2, it appears that now the Respondent No.2 does not hold any shareholding in the Respondent No.1 company nor it has got Company Appeal (AT) No.148 of 2022 any nominee director. It is claimed that the applicant alongwith other financial investor has not taken any steps to reconstitute the board of the Respondent No.1 company by appointing their directors. It is also mentioned that general meeting is not being held whereas it is being pressed before us that the Applicant be given an opportunity to represent the company. During the course of hearing on behalf of the company it is being pleaded that Respondent No.2 is not taking initiatives to restructure the board and management of the company. Thus, there is a complete deadlock and interests of the company are suffering in a great manner. In this background both the parties are claiming that their application/petitions be heard first.