TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 479
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aitanya Sharma , Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Ashish Dholakia , Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jatin Sehgal , Ms Devna Soni , Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh , Mr. Zain A Khan and Mr. Anish Ahlawat , Advocates JUDGEMENT JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) This appeal is filed against an order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the Ld. NCLT, Mumbai, wherein while dismissing the Company Application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the Ld. NCLT had observed the original petitioners/Respondents herein hold 4000 shares in the Appellant No.1 company, thereby allegedly exceeding its jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 2. It is argued the Ld. NCLT had no powers to grant reliefs sought in main ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant company No.1 and though the transaction of purchase of shares in the appellant No.1 company was divided in two tranches which are referred to as closing dates; the first closing date was to occur within 5 business days from 06.05.2016 and the second closing date was to take place not later than 5 business days from the release of the personal guarantees by the India Infoline Limited to any of its associates including IDBI trusteeship Services Ltd. Further it is the submission till date no consideration has been received by Appellants No.2 and 3 in relation to the SPA read with the side letter along with such SPA. Even the Company Petition filed by the Respondent No.1 and 2 does not contain a whisper of an allegation that Responden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respondents are the rightful owners of 4000 shares. Various litigations are pending between the parties and the matter even went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 9. In a contempt case 02/2022 in Company appeal (AT) No.104/2021, the respondent No.1 herein had sought various reliefs including, status quo in respect of shareholding of R1 and R2 as existed on January 27, 2021, however, this Tribunal remanded the matter to the Ld. NCLT for final consideration of the issues and to pass a reasoned order as the Ld. NCLT had not commented on maintainability which in fact was a primary issue raised and also did not specify the reasons for not granting interim orders. This Tribunal further in sub para (vi) of para 17 of order dated 11.10.2022 directed t....