TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 541
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....020 3. This appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 impugns the order dated 14th May, 2020 of the Company Judge of this Court disposing of CA No.242/2020 filed by the appellant in view of the order dated 13th May, 2020 on various applications filed by other applicants but claiming similar relief as claimed by the appellant in CA No.242/2020. 4. The principal grievance of the appellant in this appeal as well as as argued by the counsel for the appellant is, that the Company Judge has erred in disposing of the application of the appellant, without considering the merits thereof and in terms of the order dated 13th May, 2020 in applications of others and to which the appellant was not a party. 5. We have heard the counsel for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent No.2 Reserve Bank of India (RBI) by which Directors of CRB were restrained from disposing of properties of CRB, the appellant is legally entitled to have the said shares transferred to its name; (v) that the appellant due to prolonged illness of its Managing Director could not take further steps in the matter of transfer of the said shares to its name; (vi) that vide order dated 25th November, 2010 in CA No.176/1998 of Vikram Commercial Limited (Vikram) which had bought 5,500 shares of RIL sold by CRB, from the clearing house of DSE, during the same settlement period i.e. 12th April, 1997 to 25th April, 1997, it was held that the order dated 22nd May, 1997 appointing a provisional liquidator of CRB shall not come in the way of Vikr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s as well as the bonus shares issued thereagainst continue to stand in the records of RIL in the name of CRB, CRB upon receipt of offer letter for rights issue would be required to pay to RIL a total sum of Rs. 56,64,042/- for subscription of 4,506 rights shares to which it is eligible; (xiv) that CA No.491/2019 filed by the appellant and pending before this Court is likely to be allowed in the light of the order dated 25th November, 2010 on the application of Vikram; and, (xv) however, before CA No.491/2019 is decided, if the appellant is prevented from availing rights issue shares, the appellant will suffer irreparable injury. The appellant thus, by way of CA No.242/2020 sought a direction from the Company Judge of this Court to the OL, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant on 24th November, 2011 in Company Petition No.191/1997, setting out the same facts as set out in CA No.491/2019 and CA No.242/2020 and seeking the same order as sought by the appellant in CA No.491/2019 i.e. of transfer of 8,450 shares of RIL from the name of CRB to the name of the appellant. 9. The counsel for OL has also emailed to the Court the reply filed by OL on 12th April, 2012 to CA No.2436/2011 opposing the claim of the appellant for transfer of shares of RIL to its name, inter alia on the grounds (a) that the appellant had slept over the matter for more than 12 years; (b) that there was no explanation whatsoever as to what steps the appellant had taken between 1997, when the shares were claimed to be purchased and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore OL as and when claims were invited by OL. 11. From the aforesaid documents produced by the counsel for OL, it emerges that the appellant, after the alleged purchase of shares in 1997 and refusal of transfer thereof to its name soon thereafter, remained quiet for nearly 14 years, till about October, 2011 when CA No.2436/2011 was filed for directions for transfer of the shares to its name and which application was opposed by the counsel for OL and probably owing to which opposition, the then counsel for the appellant deemed it appropriate to withdraw the relief claimed of transfer of shares from the name of CRB to the name of the appellant with liberty to pursue the claim before the OL. The appellant conveniently concealed the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f CA No.491/2019. It is stated that the appellant is ready for preponement of hearing in CA No.491/2019. 14. The appellant having preferred this appeal instead of approaching the Company Judge for preponement of hearing of CA No.491/2019 and having taken up the time of this Court and especially after having indulged in concealment of the history of its claim as aforesaid, is not entitled to any indulgence. The present is clearly a case of re-litigation by the appellant of its claim as made in CA No.2436/2011 and which itself was barred by time and belated and was withdrawn. While considering the question of grant of any interim relief to the appellant by way of CA No.242/2020, during the pendency of CA No.491/2019, the merits of CA No.491/....