2017 (4) TMI 1439

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Hyderabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for short) in Company Petition No.42/2011. By the impugned judgement, while the Tribunal answered the oppression and mismanagement in favour of appellant and held that the company petition was maintainable only with respect to the 1st respondent and 2nd respondent has no locus standi to join in his individual capacity to file the company petition but directed the appellant company to appoint the same very 2nd respondent as Director of the appellant company. On 10th February, 2017 when the matter was taken up the Appellate Court passed the following order:- "The appellant has challenged the order dated 31st of January 2017 passed by National Company Law Tribunal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ect to 1st petitioner - Mahalaxmi Infra Ventures (India) Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 21st March 2011 and in regard to the 2nd petitioner (2nd appellant herein) the said Company Petition is not maintainable. After some arguments, learned counsel for the appellants sought permission to withdraw the appeal to enable the appellants to file a fresh Company Petition under section 241 and 242 of the Companies Act 2013 with regard to 'Oppression and Mismanagement if committed after the appellants become the shareholders of the company. Leamed counsel for the appellants further submitted that in the meantime, as ordered by the Tribunal in the impugned order dated 31st January 2017, 2nd appellant be allowed to continue as director. ....