TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 73
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mr. Randeep Sachdeva, Advocates for R-2 ORDER The present appeal was filed within time, however, in re-filing delay of 44 days has occurred. Accordingly, an interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 4168 of 2023 has been filed. Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant by way of referring to statement made in interlocutory application submitted that delay in re-filing has occurred due to the reason which was beyond control of the appellant not intentional. Considering the submission of Ld. Sr. Counsel and fact stated in interlocutory application we are satisfied with reason for delay in re-filing. Accordingly, delay of 44 days in re-filing stands condoned. Heard Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee, Ld. Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Viren Shar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Since the relief has been claimed in the main petition regarding the alienation and transfer of shares in the property concerned, therefore, in the interest of justice, the transferred shares as on 17.05.2023 be not further acted upon in the record of ROC and these shares should not be further alienated. Mr. Puneet Bali, learned Senior Advocate stated that his party/client is ready to buy remaining shares and offered his good offices to resolve the dispute. All learned Senior Advocates, present today are requested to use their good offices to resolve the dispute about selling of shares as offered by Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate. List on 04.07.2023 high on the board". On examination of the last paragraph of the order and on being as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts that though Ld. NCLT had noticed status quo order dated 03.03.2021 but the Tribunal had persuaded to pass interim order on the ground that in the petition itself relief was sought for regarding alienation and transfer of shares in the company concern. However, since a plea has been taken that the appellant was not arrayed party before the NCLT and adverse order has been passed against the appellant, we are of the opinion that instead of filing appeal the appellant was required to file an appropriate application before the NCLT for recall of the order and also for impleading him as Respondent in the main petition. It was submitted by Mr. Mukherjee, Ld. Sr. Counsel that subsequently an intervention application was also filed. Be that as ....