TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 594
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowing prayers: "1). In exercise of its inherent powers under Rule 11 and 51 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, grant liberty to withdraw the Company Petition, and file it afresh after correcting the same within 3 days of the withdrawal, while sustaining all status quo orders for one week from the date of allowing withdrawal. In the alternative to (1): 2) Allow the present application ex parte, and in consequence thereof, allow the amended Company Petition as per Annexure 1 to be taken on record, to substitute the Company Petition filed on 13-08-2007. 3) If the amendment of the Company Petition be allowed ex parte, direct or hold that the approval of the filing of the amended petition does not constitute the endors....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of- "allegedly", 5 instances of "Corrections already accepted/allowed", 11 instances of "Legal submissions or summations", 2 instances of "Addition of Respondents (Ord 1 R 10)" 1 instance of "Revised reliefs", 6 instances of "Amendments on shareholding" and 1 instance of "Deletion of what is factually incorrect". In the same summary of amendments, the Applicant has further submitted meanings of the legends being used e.g. "enlargement," "factually correct and already expressed," "discovery of new matter", "correction of already accepted/allowed" and "addition of respondents, etc." 3. Admittedly, the Applicant wants 11 types or categories of amendments/enlargements, of which the number of instances, where these amendments/enlargements occ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowed CA No. 46/2016 and accordingly present application is being decided ex-parte. During the hearing, the respondent No. 2 to 4 and 6 to 8 sought liberty to make legal submissions limited to maintainability of present application for amendment. The Respondents were allowed to assist the court with respect to legal propositions involved in the present application and no submissions with respect to facts were allowed from the Respondents. 6. Both sides had requested and were permitted to file written submissions and Respondents have filed five judgments in support of their contentions that the application cannot be entertained in law based on principles of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering, allowing/rejec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rol of the Respondent No. 1 Company herein and had control of the management of the Respondent No. 1 Company. 8. As admitted by the Applicant, who presently controls the management of Respondent No.1 Company, the Respondent No. 1 Company M/s. Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd. through present Applicant has filed another petition against the same Respondents in 2016 U/S. 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013 for acts of oppression and mismanagement, wherein an application seeking interim relief is pending consideration before this Bench, admittedly with parallel/similar prayers against the same Respondents. 9. On overall view of the entire scenario amongst the parties, litigations pending, issues involved, and also long pendency of present main ....