Tribunal orders restoration of director positions and remuneration pending main Company Petition hearing

The Tribunal partly allowed the Interlocutory Application, directing the Respondents to restore the Petitioners' directorship positions and remuneration as of 31.10.2013, maintaining the status quo until further orders. The final decision on remuneration eligibility and the legality of the Petitioners' removal will be addressed during the main Company Petition hearing.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Payment of due remuneration to Petitioners.
2. Allegations of oppression and mismanagement.
3. Legality of the removal of Petitioners from directorship.
4. Maintenance of status quo regarding Petitioners' directorship and benefits.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Payment of Due Remuneration to Petitioners:
The Petitioners, Mr. Girish Jetly (P-1) and Mr. Vivek Jetly (P-2), claimed unpaid remuneration from the Respondent Company, M/s. Sudama Chemtech Private Limited. P-1 sought Rs. 30,000 per month from November 2013, and P-2 sought Rs. 20,000 per month from September 2013. The Tribunal noted that the Petitioners were previously receiving these amounts as remuneration and that the Respondents had stopped these payments without informing the Company Law Board or obtaining its permission. The Tribunal directed the Respondents to restore the Petitioners' remuneration as it was on 31.10.2013, maintaining the status quo until further orders.

2. Allegations of Oppression and Mismanagement:
The original Company Petition No. 116 of 2013, filed by the Petitioners, included allegations of siphoning funds, illegal allotment of shares, and illegal appointment and removal of directors. The Tribunal observed that these issues were part of the main Company Petition and would be addressed comprehensively during its final hearing. The interim application focused on the immediate relief of restoring remuneration and directorship status.

3. Legality of the Removal of Petitioners from Directorship:
The Tribunal noted that the Company Law Board had issued an interim order on 31.10.2013, preventing the implementation of the resolution removing P-2 from directorship. Despite this, the Respondents had stopped the remuneration of the Petitioners, which the Tribunal found to be a violation of the status quo order. The Tribunal emphasized that any changes to the Petitioners' directorship or benefits required prior permission from the Company Law Board or the Tribunal.

4. Maintenance of Status Quo Regarding Petitioners' Directorship and Benefits:
The Tribunal reiterated that the Respondents were legally expected to maintain the status quo regarding the Petitioners' directorship and benefits as of 31.10.2013. The Tribunal directed the Respondents to restore the Petitioners' directorship positions and associated benefits, including remuneration, until further orders. This directive was subject to the final outcome of the main Company Petition.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the Interlocutory Application No. 209 of 2018, directing the Respondents to restore the Petitioners' directorship positions and remuneration as of 31.10.2013, maintaining the status quo until further orders. The Tribunal clarified that the final decision on the eligibility of remuneration and the legality of the Petitioners' removal would be addressed during the hearing of the main Company Petition.

---