TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1319
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nner conducting and the Annual General Meeting on 31.12.2019. 2. After scrutinizing the case papers, the Registry returned the same to the Counsel for the Petitioner for the following clarification among others: "The subject matter and relief sought therein relates to Companies Act also seeking relief against the Private Concerns - Respondents 3 to 6 and therefore it may be clarified as to how this Writ Petition is maintainable under Article 226 Constitution of India since there is a remedy available before the Honourable NCLT". 3. The counsel for the petitioner has re-presented the case papers with the following endorsement: "Objection raised by the Registry as per the Civil Appeal No.9176/19 in SLP.No.22596/2019 filed before the Supreme Court of India, the Writ Petition is maintainable." 4. The matter was listed before this Court on the ground of Maintainability. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9170 of 2019 @ SLP (C) No.22596 of 2019, M/s.Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka and O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or of Mines & Geology, seeking the benefit of deemed extension of the lease beyond 25.05.2018 upto 31.3.2020 in terms of Section 8A (6) of the Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as MMDR Act, 1957). v) Finding that there was no response, the Interim Resolution Professional filed a writ petition in WP No. 23075 of 2018 on the file of the High Court of Karnataka, seeking a declaration that the mining lease should be deemed to be valid upto 31.03.2020 in terms of Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957. vi) During the pendency of the writ petition, the Government of Karnataka passed an Order dated 26.09.2018, rejecting the proposal for deemed extension, on the ground that the Corporate Debtor had contravened not only the terms and conditions of the Lease Deed but also the provisions of Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and Rule 24 of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Rules, 2016. vii) In view of the Order of rejection passed by the Government of Karnataka, the Corporate Debtor, represented by the Interim Resolution Professional, withdrew the Writ Petition No.23075 of 2018, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....solely with a view to corner the benefits of the mining lease. xiii) Overruling the objections of the State, the NCLT Chennai passed an Order dated 03.05.2019 allowing the Miscellaneous Application, setting aside the order of rejection and directing the Government of Karnataka to execute Supplemental Lease Deeds. xiv) Challenging the Order of the NCLT, Chennai, the Government of Karnataka moved a writ petition in WP No.41029 of 2019 before the High Court of Karnataka. When the writ petition came up for orders as to admission, the Corporate Debtor represented by the Resolution Professional appeared through counsel and took notice and sought time to get instructions. Therefore, the High Court, by an Order dated 12.09.2019 adjourned the matter to 23.09.2019 and granted a stay of operation of the direction contained in the impugned Order of the Tribunal. Interim Stay was necessitated in view of a Contempt Application moved by the Resolution Professional before the NCLT against the Government of Karnataka for their failure to execute Supplement Lease deeds. xv) It is against the said ad Interim Order granted by the High Court that the Resolut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at in said Tribunal, the petitioners had also filed I.A.No.421 of 2019 and a comparison of the petition therein and the affidavit filed in the present Writ Petition shows that the affidavit is practically a cut and paste of the said petition. The said petition had been filed seeking the following reliefs: i. to set aside the induction of the two Additional Director pursuant to the resolution passed by the Board of Directors on 01.11.2019 in violation of the order passed by this Honourable Tribunal. ii. 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%. iii. to extend the time for subscription to the rights issue dated 01.11.2019 by a period of 30 days for infusion of entire shortfall of funds Rs. 6.5 Cr. iv. or any other order or orders as this Honourable Tribunal deems fit in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. 12. As a matter of fact, relief No.2 above, namely, to have representation in proportion to the equity shareholding, is the same relief as sought in the present Writ Petition which has been ....