TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 1450
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ) And [ Ajai Das Mehrotra ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Mr. Dhiren R Dave , Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh , Ms. Anushree Kapadia , Mr. M. T. Reddy , Advocates ORDER ( Hybrid Mode ) This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated 22.02.2024 whereby an application of recall of an order dated 11.01.2024 was dismissed. 2. It is the submission of the Ld. Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id since the Respondent No. 7 had filed the valuation report; thus was made a party to the Company Petition before the Ld. NCLT. However vide order dated 11.01.2024, the Ld. NCLT passed the following order : CP/29(AHM)2022 It is seen that Respondent No. 7 who is happened to be valuer has given valuation report, has been added one of the Respondent and specifically stated that no relief has bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent No. 7 " . 5. Vide this order the Ld. NCLT had prima facie found the Respondent No. 7 was unnecessarily made a party to the petition, hence directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- with it in the shape of FDR and at the time of final adjudication if it was to be found that Respondent No.7 was not a proper and necessary party the said amount shall be released to Respond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner had got fabricated such valuation report. 7. Except the above there is no other pleading qua role of the Respondent No. 7 except he only had prepared a valuation report. Further admittedly no relief was claimed against Respondent No. 7 as he was a Proforma Respondent. Hence, we are of the opinion the Ld. NCLT had rightly observed there was nothing on record to suggest Respondent No.7 was a n....