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>Appellate Tribunal Overturns Order, Remands Case for Fresh Consideration</h1> <h3>Shri Yogendra Pal Jain, Ms. Usha Kiran Jain Versus South Eastern Carriers Pvt. Ltd., Shri Ravindra Kumar Gupta (formal party), Shri Tanmay Gupta, For Self & as Karta of Tanmay Gupta & Sons (HUF), Ms. Veena Gupta, Shri Arun Gupta, Ms. Savita Gupta, Ms. Manisha Mehta, M/s. Care Go Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Shri Siddharth Jain, ROC, Kolkata</h3> Shri Yogendra Pal Jain, Ms. Usha Kiran Jain Versus South Eastern Carriers Pvt. Ltd., Shri Ravindra Kumar Gupta (formal party), Shri Tanmay Gupta, For Self ... Issues Involved:1. Oppression and Mismanagement2. Transfer of Shares3. Removal of Directors4. Non-Compliance with Interim Orders5. Maintainability of Company PetitionSummary:Oppression and Mismanagement:The Appellants alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement by the Respondents, particularly R-2, R-3, and R-5. They claimed that the Respondents indulged in acts of oppression to divide the company and exclude A-1 and A-2. The Appellants approached the NCLT alleging oppression and mismanagement and obtained a 'status quo' order on 3.5.2016 to prevent the removal of A-1 and R-9 from their positions.Transfer of Shares:The Appellants contended that the shareholding of Smt. Uttama Gupta was surreptitiously transferred to the wives of R-2 and R-5. A-1 demanded an explanation for this transfer but did not receive a reply. The Respondents argued that the transfer was done via a gift deed dated 25.10.2007 and was approved in a board meeting on 3.11.2007.Removal of Directors:A-1 and R-9 were removed from their positions on the grounds of their absence from four board meetings within a year, leading to their cessation under section 167(1)(b) of the Companies Act. The Appellants claimed this removal was fraudulent and in violation of the 'status quo' order. The NCLT dismissed CA No. 1584/KB/2019, holding that A-1 was not currently holding the position of Managing Director, thus ineligible under section 196(3).Non-Compliance with Interim Orders:The Appellants filed multiple contempt applications alleging non-compliance with the interim orders dated 3.5.2016 and 18.8.2016. They claimed that the Respondents obstructed A-1 and R-9 from performing their duties and attending board meetings, which was not appropriately considered by the NCLT.Maintainability of Company Petition:The NCLT dismissed CP No. 42/KB/2016 and connected IAs, holding them as not maintainable. The Appellate Tribunal found that the NCLT did not appropriately consider the issues of oppression and mismanagement raised in the petitions and applications.Conclusion:The Appellate Tribunal set aside the Impugned Order dated 1.4.2022 in its entirety, including the dismissal of CA No. 1584/KB/2019. The matter was remanded to NCLT, Kolkata for fresh consideration of CP No. 42/KB/2016 and associated applications, ensuring due consideration and opportunity of hearing for all parties. The 'status quo' orders dated 3.5.2016, 18.8.2016, and 1.10.2019 were directed to continue in effect during the reconsideration.
TaxTMI 