2022 (8) TMI 71

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ugh he is holding more than 35% shares and also alleging that respondent no. 2 is mismanaging the company's affairs. 2. In the petition itself, the petitioner claimed interim relief directing respondents no. 1 to 3 not to dispose of in any manner or alienate the company's property. It is also specifically prayed that respondents no. 1 to 3 may be restrained from executing, implementing, and acting on the agreement to sale (annexed at Annexure-F). There are a number of other prayers. Learned counsel Mr. Yuvraj Thakore appearing for the petitioner submitted that at this stage he restricted his argument only relating to the main prayer that the pending bearing of this company petition respondents no. 1 to 3 may be restrained from al....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0,000/- by cheque from the purchaser. It is stated that amount does not reflect in company's balance sheet ending March 2021 (page 251-257). According to him, it is nothing but siphoning of the amount of company by respondent no. 2 for his own benefit. It is against the petitioner's interest in the company. Hence, he requested this Tribunal to restrain respondents no. 2 and 3 from creating any third party interest in the property owned by respondent no. 1 company. The petitioner also requested to direct respondents no. 1 to 3 to maintain the status quo relating to the agreement to sale in question 7. Learned counsel Mr. Rasesh H. Parikh for respondent no. 1 submitted that the petition itself is not maintainable because it is file....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as consideration amount. It is also not in dispute that respondent no. 2 has filed a Civil Suit against the purchaser of the property and that suit is still pending. 9. The petitioner wanted us to stay execution, implementation, and operation of the sale agreement dated 05.03.2021. In our considered opinion, we cannot issue such injunction for the simple reason that the purchaser of the property is not a party before us. If we pass any such order, it will greatly affect the proposed purchaser's right in the property although he had already paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to respondents no. 1 to 3. Now, because of the dispute between two brothers who are having an equal shareholding in respondent no. 1 company, the third party should ....