TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 65
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at Chennai under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 and it is relevant to extract the relief sought for by the petitioners in the said petition: B: Final Relief: In view of the facts mentioned above, the petitioners respectfully and humbly pray for the following reliefs: (i) The petitioners humbly pray that this Hon'ble NCLT may be pleased to declare that the acts of the respondents 2 to 5 are oppressive and prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners and the 1st respondent Company. (ii) The petitioners humbly pray that this Hon'ble NCLT may be pleased to direct the second respondent Company to file Form MBP-4 under Section 89 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting on 19.11.2018 and also AGM scheduled to be held on 22.11.2018 with a direction to both the parties not to exercise voting right in respect to the disputed shareholding of 4.5%. The interim application was listed for hearing on 01.10.2019 and the NCLT having noted that pleadings have been completed in the main C.P.No.20/2018, directed the parties to advance arguments on the next date of hearing with further indication that the petitioner if does not argue the case on the next date of hearing, the interim order shall stand vacated. 3. The petitioner filed I.A.No.421/ in C.P.No.20/2018 praying for the following relief: 1. "to set aside the induction of the two additional Director pursuant to the resolution passed by the Board ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., which had become final. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner also filed I.A.No.252/2018 in C.P.No.20/2018 to set aside the induction of the two additional Directors, pursuant to the resolution passed by the Board of Directors on 01.11.2019, in violation of the order passed by the Tribunal dated 26.04.2018 and to pass a direction that the Board of Directors shall have representation in proportion to the equity shareholding of the petitioners with 47.68% and the respondents with 47.82%, respectively and admittedly, I.A.No.252/2018 as well as I.A.No.421/2019 are kept pending and for want of Presiding Officer, the matter was originally listed on 04.12.2019 and stands posted to 07.02.2020. 6. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 21.12.2018 in C.R.P.Nos.3278, 4028, 4029 and 4065 of 2017 (Infonet Asia Private Limited Vs. Autocap India Private Limited) and would submit that in similar facts and circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition were numbered and however, the Division Bench of this Court having noted that there is an alternative remedy in the form of appeal, has dismissed the Civil Revision Petition as not maintainable and in the light of the fact that the respondents had committed fraud by not complying with the impugned order passed by the NCLT dated 14.10.2019 in I.A.No.421/2019 in C.P.No.20/2018, the petitioners are left with no other option, except to approach this Court. 7. This Court has carefully considered the rival submission and also perused....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice." 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision in M/s.Embassy Property Developments Private Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and Others [2019 (17) Scale 37] had dealt with the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court under Section 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and observed as follows:. 11. It is beyond any pale of doubt that IBC, 2016 is a complete Code in itself. As observed by this Court in Innoventive Industries Limited v. ICICI Bank, it is an exhaustive code on the subject matter of insolvency in relation to corporate entities and others. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re there was a wrongful exercise of the available jurisdiction. An "error of jurisdiction" was always distinguished from "in excess of jurisdiction", until the advent of the decision rendered by the House of Lords, by a majority of 3:2 in Anisminic Ltd.v. Foreign Compensation Commission. After acknowledging that a confusion had been created by the observations made in Reg.v. Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Armah to the effect that if a Tribunal has jurisdiction to go right, it has jurisdiction to go wrong, it was held in Anisminic that the real question was not whether an authority made a wrong decision but whether they enquired into and decided a matter which they had no right to consider. 24. Therefore in so far as the quest....