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>Appeal Dismissed: Upheld NCLT's Order on Company Act Sections 241, 242, 245</h1> <h3>Mr. Mukesh Mehta & Ors. Versus Silver Land Developers Private Limited & Ors.</h3> Mr. Mukesh Mehta & Ors. Versus Silver Land Developers Private Limited & Ors. - [2020] 219 Comp Cas 1 (NCLAT - Del) Issues:- Appeal against order passed by NCLT under Sections 241, 242 & 245 of the Companies Act, 2013.- Allegations of ousting Appellants from company management.- Unilateral disposal of assets by Respondents.- Request for interim reliefs against Respondents.- Dispute regarding authority of 'J.M. Financial Services' to sell mortgaged properties.- Allegations of collusion between Respondents and 'J.M. Financial Services'.- Compliance with regulations under the Companies Act, 2013.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against the NCLT's order passed under Sections 241, 242 & 245 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Appellants alleged that Respondents had forcibly ousted them from managing the company and were conducting affairs arbitrarily, leading to the filing of a Company Petition.2. The Respondent Company, engaged in real estate development, had taken a loan from 'J.M. Financial Services,' with properties mortgaged. Allegations were made that Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were disposing of assets at undervalued prices, prompting the Appellants to seek interim reliefs through a Miscellaneous Application.3. The NCLT passed an interim order directing both parties to maintain the status quo for 14 days, allowing 'J.M. Financial Services' to proceed as a secured creditor after the specified period, with a caution against collusive sales. The Appellants challenged this order in the appeal.4. The crux of the dispute revolved around the authority of 'J.M. Financial Services' to sell mortgaged properties without the Company's consent. The Appellants argued that such sales were unauthorized and undervalued, while the Respondents contended that it was within their rights as a secured creditor due to default by the Company.5. The NCLT's order was upheld on the grounds that the relief sought by the Appellants had been granted, and the issue of 'J.M. Financial Services' authority to sell properties could only be determined after examining allegations of oppression and mismanagement. The order was deemed just and equitable under Section 242 of the Companies Act, 2013.6. The appeal was dismissed, with no costs imposed, as the impugned order was found to be in line with the regulatory provisions and the interests of both the Company and the Appellants were adequately protected.By considering the submissions and relevant legal provisions, the Appellate Tribunal concluded that there were no grounds to interfere with the NCLT's order, thereby dismissing the appeal.
TaxTMI 