TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Orders Virtual Mediation in Company Petition Alleging Oppression & Mismanagement</h1> <h3>Mr. V.G. Selvaraj, Mr. V.G.S. Vinodh Raj, Mr. V.G.S. Bharath Raj, Versus VGP Housing Private Limited, Mr. VGP Babudas, Mr. VGP Ravidas, Mr. V.G. Santhosam, Mr. V.G.S. Rajesh, M/s. VGP Golden Beach Resorts Pvt. Ltd., M/s. VGP Marine Kingdom Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Mr. V.G. Selvaraj, Mr. V.G.S. Vinodh Raj, Mr. V.G.S. Bharath Raj, Versus VGP Housing Private Limited, Mr. VGP Babudas, Mr. VGP Ravidas, Mr. V.G. ... Issues:1. Urgent listing of the Company Petition for hearing.2. Allegations of oppression and mismanagement in the Company Petition.3. Failure of mediation proceedings and subsequent urgent hearing application.4. Unilateral conduct of committee meetings by the Respondents.5. Request for interim direction to prevent disposal of properties.6. Counter affidavit filed by Respondents regarding mediation and committee meetings.7. Submissions by Applicants and Respondents during the hearing.8. Consideration of maintainability of the Petition.9. Impact of Covid-19 pandemic on mediation and valuation exercises.10. Order for re-commencement of mediation proceedings.Detailed Analysis:1. The Applicants sought urgent listing of the Company Petition due to alleged oppression and mismanagement continuing in the company. They claimed that mediation efforts had failed, leading to the urgent application for early hearing.2. The Respondents were accused of unilaterally conducting committee meetings and fixing rates for land sites, potentially causing harm to the Applicants. The Applicants requested an early hearing to prevent the disposal of company properties.3. The Respondents, in their counter affidavit, refuted the allegations of unilateral conduct of meetings and stated that all actions were in compliance with tribunal orders. They argued that the Application did not seek interim relief and highlighted the need to consider maintainability issues before the main Company Petition.4. During the hearing, the Applicants emphasized the need for overriding powers to prevent oppressive decisions by the majority. They also raised concerns about the sale of land bank by the Respondent Company without proper procedures.5. The Respondents defended their actions, stating that proper procedures were followed in committee meetings and valuation exercises. They highlighted the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on mediation proceedings and requested the re-commencement of mediation for resolution.6. The Tribunal considered the submissions and ordered the re-commencement of mediation proceedings by a specified date, emphasizing the importance of resolving the dispute through mediation. The Mediator was directed to conduct proceedings virtually if necessary and provide a report by a set deadline.7. The Tribunal disposed of the Application, instructing parties to comply with all previous orders until the Mediator's report was submitted. The decision aimed to expedite the mediation process and address the grievances raised by both parties effectively.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
