Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)Messer Greisheim Gmbh (Now Called Air ... vs Goyal Mg Gases Private Limited on 28 January, 2022
26. Thus, it is clear that NCLT is bound by law to execute its
order/decree if called upon to do so, and that it has the power to
execute an order under section 424(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.
Further, as has been held in the judgment in the matter of M/s.
Greisheim GmbH vs. Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. (supra) a litigant
is entitled to receive the fruits of decree, which in the present case
is amount of Rs. 28.77 crores against sale/transfer of their
shareholding by the Respondents in addition to certain other
payments. It, therefore, becomes abundantly clear that NCLT has
not erred in taking action for execution of the Consent Terms
which were taken on record and approved by the NCLT.
Company Appeal (AT) No. 62-63-64 of 2023
Manish Mohan Sharma & Ors vs Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd. & Ors on 21 March, 2006
23. We also note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the
matter of Manish Mohan Sharma vs. Ram Bahadur Thakur
Limited (supra) that the Company Law Board has been held to be
authorised to function as an Executing Court, if decree to be
executed is not a nullity. The relevant part of this judgment is as
follows:-
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
K. Muthusamy vs N. Sankaranarayana & Ors on 23 March, 2017
22. We take note of sub section 3 of section 424 of the
Companies Act, 2013 whereby the NCLT is empowered to take
action regarding enforcement/execution of its orders with the
same powers that are available to a civil court executing a decree
under the CPC. We further note the judgment of NCLAT in the
matter of K. Muthusamy vs. N. Sankarnaryana and Ors.(supra)
wherein the following is held by the NCLAT:-