2020 (10) TMI 920

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shaunak Mitra, Mrs Anamika Pandey and Mrs Amrita Pandey, Advocatges for R4 to R5. JUDGEMENT Mr. Balvinder Singh, Member (Technical) 1. The present appeal has been preferred by appellant under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 against the impugned order dated 5th June, 2020 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata (in short 'Tribunal') in unnumbered CP __/KB/2020 vide which the Tribunal has declined the interim relief prayed by the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent is a company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 on 7th April, 1971. The company has issued and subscribed 22612 equity shares of Rs. 100/- each. The appellants are shareholders of 1st respondent and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ii) Injunction restraining the Respondents Nos 4 and 5 from holding and/or claiming to be the Directors of R-1 company. iii) Injunction restraining the respondents and each of them from expending any funds of the company in any manner whatsoever including the purpose of contesting the present proceedings; iv) In the alternative and without prejudice to the aforesaid prayers, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the management and the administration of R-1 Company be conductged by. 4. After hearing the parties on the interim relief at length, the Tribunal ordered that "the balance of convenience also does not favour the petitioners. In view of the matter I am not inclined to grant the interim reliefs as prayed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the signature of the appellant prima facie appears do not match with the fonts and caps of the letters on the first two pages. g) that 4th Respondent was shown to be appointed as Director but in the form DIR 12 the 4th Respondent No.4 is shown to have been appointed as Additional Director. h) that the Respondents are using the funds of the company to sponsor the litigation against the appellants. i) that the letter of appointment of 4th and 5th respondent and the letters submitted to Bank are totally different (Page 187 and 188 read with Paged 199 and 200). j) that in the Board Meeting dated 20th January, 2020 the mandate to Bank was changed. The Respondents have failed to explain why they had intimated ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... further stated that it is settled law where Articles are silent, the provisions of Table A will apply. e) that the appellants are guilty of wrongfully freezing the bank operation of the Respondent company due to which the wages of more than 55 employees could not be paid for several weeks from March 2020. f) that the appellants deliberately filed returns fraudulently by unilaterally manipulating the entries for their own malafide purposes for which the Respondents have to file the revised returns and also issued warning to the appellants vide email dated 31.10.2019 (Page 110 of reply). 8. Reply on behalf of 4th and 5th Respondent has also been filed. Respondents have stated that the appeal has been filed upon suppressi....