TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 151
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....And [Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical) For the Appellants : Mr. Nakul Dewan, Senior Advocate For Mr. Sachin S. Pujari, Advocate ORDER (Virtual Mode) These 'Three Appeals' have been preferred by the 'Appellants' / 'Petitioners', assailing the correctness, validity, propriety and legality of the 'impugned order' dated 28.06.2022 passed in IA (CA) No.16 of 2022 in CP No.47/241/HDB/2021, IA (CA) No.15 of 2022 in CP No.47/241/HDB/2021 and IA (CA) No.13 of 2021 in CP No.47/241/HDB/2021 by the 'National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the 'Tribunal', had made the following observations: - "2. Respondents No.1, 2, 5 and 6 have filed Counter, inter alia, contending that the claim of petitioner that he ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Petition is 'at stake' and if the Main Company Petition No.47/2021 is taken up by the 'Tribunal', for 'Hearing', then, serious 'prejudice' and 'irreparable hardship' will be caused to the 'Appellants' / 'Petitioners'. 3. Also, that on behalf of the 'Appellants' / 'Petitioners', before this 'Tribunal', it is pointed out that Mr. Rajeev Satpal Lakhanpal has got 70% shares (vide 'Memorandum of Association') at Page No.180 of the 'Appeal Paper Book' in Comp. App. (AT) No.65/2022, and that the 'Tribunal' should have looked into that aspect, before making an 'observation' about the 'Locus standi' of the 'Appellants' / 'Petitioners', to file the Company Petition, which is purportedly, 'at stake'. 4. This 'Tribunal', after 'Hearing' the Learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5. At this juncture, this 'Tribunal' lucidly makes it quite clear that the 'Tentative Observations', made to the effect that the very 'Locus standi' of the 'Petitioners' to file 'Company Petition' 'at stake', etc. shall not stand in the way of the 'Tribunal' in deciding or rendering findings of the 'Locus' of the 'Petitioners' and the 'issues' / 'points' for determination, while adverting to the same and the 'Tentative Finding', so rendered in the 'impugned orders' at 11th paragraph cannot be a 'decisive' and 'governing' factor for the 'Tribunal' to decide the 'main Company Petition', in a final and conclusive manner of course, in a fair, just, dispassionate manner and to pass a 'reasoned speaking order', in a qualitative and quantitative t....