TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1373
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....UDICIAL) These appeals challenge an impugned order dated 01.06.2026 passed by the Ld. NCLT, Mumbai Bench in Company Application No.23(MB)/2026 in CP No.47/(MB)/2016 whereby the Ld. NCLT has allowed amendment application filed by Respondent No.1, Mr. Deepak Kishan Chhabria on 22.01.2026 seeking to amend CP No.47/2016, a petition pending before Ld. NCLT since 16.11.2016. 2. Before coming to the amendment application it would be appropriate to state few facts. It is the case of the appellant that he and Respondent No.1 are brothers and the fight qua 1,00,300 shares, allegedly gifted by Mr. Prahlad Parasram Chhabria, their father in favour of Mr. Prakash P. Chhabria viz the appellant herein out of love and affection and the indenture of gift is filed on record. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant this transfer of 1,00,300 shares of Mr. Prakash P Chhabria was duly approved by the Board of Directors on 31.03.2016 in a Board Meeting wherein Mr. Deepak Kishan Chhabria, Respondent No.1 was also present. It is submitted though the Company Petition was filed by Respondent No.1 challenging the minutes of the meeting dated 31.03.2016 but he never sought re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o declare Article 60 as an Entrenched Article under Section 5 of the Companies Act and to declare the modification of Article 59 and deletion of Article 60 carried out pursuant to EOGM held on 03.05.2019 to be illegal; the deletion of Articles 38, 40 and 46 of the Articles of Association carried in pursuant of EOGM held on 09.02.2021 to be null and void. 7. It is the case of the Respondent No. 1, he rather moved MA No.1449/2019 to set aside the resolution passed in EOGM dated 03.05.2019 but was not interfered with by the Ld. NCLT and even in appeal before this Tribunal vide order dated 08.02.2021, expeditious disposal of the company petition was only ordered. Further Respondent No. 1 even challenged the holding of the EOGM dated 09.02.2021 by filing an application being IA No.211/2021 before this Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) No. 64/2020 but it was disposed of by saying the relief sought in the IA was beyond the scope of the appeal, hence the appellant was directed to approach the Ld. NCLT where the main petition was pending. 8. The matter of M.A. No. 1449/2019 was rather taken to Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 12.01.2026 in Civil Appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of challenge against the dismissal of the suit filed by Digambar the first appellate court could not have interfered with that part of the decision of the trial court. Regarding the suit filed by Vishwambhar it was filed within the prescribed period of limitation but without the prayer for setting aside the sale deeds. 10. xxxx As noted earlier, the basis of the suit as it stood before the amendment of the plaint was that the sale transactions made by Laxmibai as guardian of the minors were ab initio void and, therefore, liable to be ignored. By introducing the prayer for setting aside the sale deeds the basis of the suit was changed to one seeking setting aside the alienations of the property by the guardian. In such circumstance the suit for setting aside the transfers could be taken to have been filed on the date the amendment of the plaint was allowed and not earlier than that. 11. Further in South Konkan Distilleries and another Vs Prabhakar Gajanan Naik and others (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 632 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: 24. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of amendment and the length of time a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... allegations made in the petition are accepted to be true. Such is not the position here. It is only at the final hearing of the petition that the court would be able to decide the issues as to whether the dividend squeeze could amount to an oppression. 15. Further in Ragu Thilak D John Vs S. Rayappan (2001) 2 SCC 472 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: - "a. The dominant purpose of allowing an amendment is to minimize multiplicity of litigation and enable the Court to determine the real controversy between the parties. b. Where the plea of limitation is itself disputed on arguable, it is not a ground to refuse the amendment at the threshold. The amendment should ordinarily be allowed, and the issue of limitation should be left open to be decided at the final hearing after the necessary issues are framed. c. The Court held that amendments incorporating subsequent events and consequential reliefs ought not to be rejected merely because the opposite party raises a plea of limitation. Such plea is to be adjudicated on merits at the trial and not at the stage of considering the amendment application. 16. Moreso in MC Davar Holdings Pvt Ltd Vs Aurosagar Esta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e has been made out. Similar view has been taken in Wander Ltd v. Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727 [para 14], reproduced below: "14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court ....