TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1818
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Keerthi, Advocate ORDER K. Anantha Padmanabha Swamy , Member ( J ) 1. Under Consideration is an Application filed by the Original Petitioner, vide IA No. 345/2019 in CP No. 148/241/HDB/2018 under Rule 82 of NCLT Rules, 2016 seeking following reliefs: i) Permitting the Petitioner to withdraw Company Petition No. 148/241/HDB/2018, Interlocutory Application No. 296 of 2019 and Interlocutory Application No.180 of 2019 along with all other Pending Interlocutory Applications filed by the Petitioner on the file of this Tribunal in the interest of justice and equity. ii) Any other relief this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 2. As the present Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on behalf of the Petitioner who had filed IA No. 345/2019 & IA No. 346/2019. Matter was taken up for hearing on being mentioned. The prayer in IA No. 346/2019 was to advance the date of hearing in IA No. 345/2019, the prayer in which was to permit the Petitioner to withdraw the main Company Petition. Upon hearing the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel and on being satisfied by the reasons stated for advancement, this Tribunal directed the registry to put IA No. 345/2019 along with all the connected Applications on 10.05.2019. 6. During the hearing held on 10.05.2019, IA No. 345/2019 was taken up. This Tribunal directed all the counsels representing Respondents in IA No. 345/2019 and Applicant in IA No. 312/2019 to file their ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elevant portion of the said order is extracted herein below: '.........So far as C.P. No. 148/241/HDB/2018 is concerned, the Tribunal may allow the withdrawal of the Company Petition but in case of refusal, it will give reasons and will not pass any interim order'. 9. Counsel for the Petitioner in its written submissions inter-alia submitted the following: i. That the Petitioner has an absolute and unconditional right to ask for an unconditional withdrawal. ii. That there is no requirement on the Tribunal to examine the record of settlement agreement. iii. That the Respondent No. 5 is precluded from raising objections to Petitioner's withdrawal. iv. That the third party Appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has placed reliance on the following judgements: a) VLS Finance vs. Southend Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (CA (AT) No. 370 of 2017). b) Hulas Rai Baij Nath Vs. Firm KB. Bass & Co. ( (1967) 3 SCR 886). c) Anil Kumar Singh vs. Vijay Pal Singh ( (2018) 12 SCC 584). d) Baligar Sahamulia vs. Baligara Fakruddin Sab, ((2005) 10 SCC 214) e) Bijayananda Patanaik vs. Satrughna Sahu & Ors. ((1964) 2 SCR 538) f) S.K Hussain vs. M.G. Kannaiah ( (1981) 3 SCC 71) g) Jal Mahal Resorts (P) Ltd vs. KP. Sharma ((2014) 8 SCC 866). 11. Counsel for R2, R3 & R6 have adopted the written submissions filed by R1. 12. Counsel (Mr. D.V.A.S Ravi Prasad) filed written submissions for Respondent No. 4 stating....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....019 is in violation of the order dated 04.09.2018. iii. That there was a hostile takeover of R4 Company and ousting of R5 on the evening of 10.05.2019 and that R5 along with other directors have filed Company Petition before this Tribunal on 09.05.2019. iv. Since the restrain order dated 04.09.2018 is the subject matter of Company Petition filed by R5 and since Alanda and others in collusion with Petitioners and R1 to R3 and R6 are trying to press the instant Application, the same is liable to be dismissed. v. That the settlement between the Petitioner and the R1 for an amount of Rs. 65 Crores doubt on nature and legality of the transaction occurred between them. vi. That R5 was not served with the copy o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der, the Tribunal has also considered the fact and borne in mind that the Respondent No. 5 has filed a separate Company Petition bearing CP No. 310/241/HDB/2019 alleging the acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of R4 Company. However, the proceedings in the said Company Petition have been stayed by Hon'ble NCLAT vide its order dated 16.05.2019 in Company Appeal (AT) No. 121, 122 & 123 of 2019. 18. As held by the Hon'ble NCLAT in VLS Finance vs. Southend Infrastructure Pvt Ltd "21.1 .....when a claim of settlement between warring group is stated and simple withdrawal is asked, NCLT cannot be asked to continue with Petition on a rowing enquiry at the instance of a non-member. Further the Hon'ble Supreme court in ....