2025 (12) TMI 14

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....241/HDB/2020, Mantrawadi Nagachandrika & 4 Ors. v MPR Refractories Pvt. Ltd. & 7 Ors. In the company petition thus preferred, the Respondent/Petitioner had sought for the following reliefs, which are extracted hereunder: - "a) To declare that Respondents 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are as oppressors and acting against the interest of Respondent No.1 Company. b) Pass an order directing Respondent No.1 to cancel the allotment of shares to Respondent No.2 to 5 vide board meeting dated 17.10.2020 as illegal, null and void ab initio. c) Declare the transfer of 5,15,000 shares from Petitioner No.1's late Husband to Respondent No.2 vide entries dated 17.09.2010 in "Register of Directors Share and Debenture Holdings" - members l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing of the partial relief, which was principally prayed for in the Company Petition particularly in the context of the main relief no. 2, that was sought therein and that inferences been derived by the Respondent/Petitioner, in the light of the observations which has been made by the Ld. Tribunal in para 24 of the impugned order. 3. The Appellant herein, had preferred the instant Company Appeal challenging the part of the impugned order and the findings thus recorded therein the impugned order, Appeal by questioning the observation, which has been made in para 11, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23 and 24. The Appellant submits that, the observations, which has been made in the aforesaid paragraphs are based upon the misreading of the evidence and t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....attracted by a party to the proceedings of the Company Petition, later to be utilised for the purposes in any subsequent proceedings, and particularly by the Respondent/Petitioner whose Company Petition has already been dismissed on merits by the order dated 28.11.2023, which till date remains unchallenged. Thus, the argument extended by the Ld. counsel for the Respondent/Petitioner, treating as if the docket orders would still be surviving even after dismissal of his Company Petition and the orders passed during the proceedings of the Company Petition could be read in the context of relief no.2, is not acceptable by this Appellate Tribunal and the said arguments as raised by Respondent/Petitioner would stand turned down, as all interlocuto....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....atter of scrutiny in this instant Company Appeal at the behest of the Appellant/Respondent herein cannot be sustained and they would too be treated to have met its judicial death with the adjudication of the Company Petition made by the judgment of 28.11.2023 and would be treated to merged with resultant dismissal of the Company Petition. In that eventuality, we are unable to appreciate the argument extended by the Ld. counsel for the Respondents/Petitioner that the dismissal of the Company Petition, could not be taken, as if it would amount to a partial grant of the relief, particularly if we see the manner in which the adjudication has been made by the Ld. Tribunal, particularly in the context of the observations that has been made by the....