TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 245
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....19 till the final disposal of the Civil Appeals pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the orders of the NCLT, Kochi Bench itself in CP/114/KOB/2019 and NCLAT, Chennai; II. Pass such other orders or directions as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice." Prayers in O.P.(C) No. 430 of 2026; "I. Direct the NCLT, Kochi Bench not to proceed with the Execution Petition/03/KOB/2024 in CP/125/KOB/2019 till the final disposal of the Civil Appeals pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the orders of the NCLT, Kochi Bench itself in CP/125/КОВ/2019 and NCLAT, Chennai; II. Pass such other orders or directions as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice." Prayers in O.P.(C) No. 435 of 2026; "I. Direct the NCLT, Kochi Bench not to proceed with the Execution Petition/02/ΚΟΒ/2024 in CP/119/КОВ/2019 till the final disposal of the Civil Appeals pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the orders of the NCLT, Kochi Bench itself in CP/119/ΚΟΒ/2019 and NCLAT, Chennai; II. Pas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a were to have assets worth 27%, 26% and 25% respectively. Smt. Pinky Goyal was to have 5% of the assets and 17% of the assets were to be retained with Sri.Radha Ballabh Gupta. The MoU also states that as far as possible, the Companies will be allotted to the son who was managing it. Presently, the dispute is basically between the elder sons Sri. Rajkumar Gupta and Sri. Vishnukant Gupta on one side and the younger son Sri. Mahesh Gupta, Smt. Sulochana Gupta and Sri. Mahesh Gupta's wife on the other side. The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.310 of 2019 before the Munsiff's Court, Kochi seeking a decree of mandatory injunction directing compliance with the MoU dated 15.09.2016. I.A. No.2023 of 2019 had been filed seeking interim protection and on 08.08.2019, the Munsiff Court granted an interim injunction restraining interference with the assets managed by the 1st respondent. I.A. No.5 of 2021 was filed by the 2nd defendant in the suit challenging the maintainability of the suit on the ground of bar under Section 430 of the Companies Act. Thereafter, the order of injunction was vacated, against which CMA Nos. 11 and 12 of 2022 were preferred before the Sub Court, Kochi, which are stated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f any company as contemplated under section 242(4A) of the Act with effect from 31.12.2021; III. On a consideration of the documents filed by the Respondent pursuant to the directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal on 28.07.2021 and 12.08.2021, the affirmation of the 3rd Respondent (ie, Mr Vishnukant Gupta) to the Review Petition, the reliefs sought for in IA/195/KOB/2021 shall stand allowed. The Registry is directed to take necessary action forthwith; IV. In view of our finding that the 2nd and 3rd respondent have failed to comply with the provisions of Act governing related party transactions (including Section 184 and 188), they shall stand disqualified as Directors of the 1st respondent Companies having regard to section 164(1)(g) of the Act with effect from 31.12.2021; V. Mrs. Sulochana Gupta (DIN- 02233110) and Mr Radha Ballabh Gupta (DIN -00643069) shall stand appointed as Directors of the 1st respondent Companies with immediate effect; VI. Mrs. Sulochana Gupta (DIN - 02233110) and Mr Radha Ballabh Gupta (DIN-00643069) are hereby directed to convene the Annual General Meetings of the 1st respondent Companies in CP/114/KOB/2019, CP/119/KOB/2019 &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Court that the petitioners herein had terminated the mediation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, however directed the petitioners to intimate their willingness to continue with the mediation within two weeks from 14.05.2024 and the case was directed to be listed on 26.07.2024. On 12.08.2024, since it had been reported that the dispute could not be settled, the Hon'ble Supreme Court admitted the Civil Appeals for hearing and for consideration of the request for interim reliefs made by both the parties. Respondents 1 and 2 had filed I.A. No. 128185 of 2023 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking stay of the order of remand issued by the NCLAT. The petitioners had filed I.A. No. 138540 of 2023 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking stay of the final order of the NCLAT in Company Appeal Nos.18, 19, 20 and 31 of 2022 as far as it sets aside the order of the NCLT in Rectification Application R.A. No. 2/KOB/2022 dated 16.03.2022. There were also other prayers in the application, copy of which has been produced as Ext.R1(b) in O.P.(C) No. 233 of 2026. On 17.09.2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and stayed only the remand proceedings mentioned in paragraph 44 of Ext.P3 j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 631 of 2025 was taken up before this Court on 09.01.2026, on which day, the counsel for the petitioners therein submitted that the pleadings are complete before the NCLT and sought permission to withdraw the original petition with permission to move the NCLT for an early hearing. This Court closed the original petition without prejudice to the rights of the parties. The matter came up before the NCLT on 08.01.2026. The counsel for respondents 1 and 2 requested for permission to withdraw IA(C/ACT)/ 174/KOB/2025 in Execution Petition/1/KOB/2024 in CP/114/KOB/2019 to remove certain typographical errors and resubmit. The request was allowed, and the petition was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application on payment of cost. The Execution Petition was adjourned to 16.01.2026. On 16.01.2026, the Execution Petition was adjourned to 20.02.2026. It is in the above background that the original petition has been filed for a direction to the NCLT not to proceed with the Execution Petition till final disposal of the Civil Appeals pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The original petition was filed on 20.01.2026. 6. O.P.(C) No. 430 of 2026 has been fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posal of the civil appeals pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and whether this Court should decide on the question of maintainability of the execution petition at the first instance. 12. The execution petition has been filed pursuant to the dismissal of a review application as per Ext.P2 order. In the three company petitions which were heard together, the NCLT on 31.12.2021 held that certain related party transactions are invalid. The order however does not direct any investigation into the companies or impose any penalty on the parties. In a review application filed by the petitioners 3 and 4 an order was passed on 16.03.2022, whereby the Tribunal held that it had no power of review, but at the same time issued clarifications on the order dated 31.12.2021 by adding 11 directions. One of the directions was that respondents 1 and 2 who were Directors of the three companies were deemed to have vacated the office with effect from 31.12.2021 and two others were appointed as Directors in their place. There was also a direction to notify the ROC and the Bankers about the removal of respondents 1 and 2 as Directors and the appointment of the new Directors. Respondents 1 and 2 thu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....27 of the Constitution of India before this Court. Section 424 of the 2013 Act lays down the procedure before the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal. Section 424(3) says that any order made by the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal may be enforced by that Tribunal in the same manner as if it were a decree made by a court in a suit pending therein, and it shall be lawful for the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal to send for execution of its orders to the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, (a) in the case of an order against a company, the registered office of the company is situate; or (b) in the case of an order against any other person, the person concerned voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that a reading of Section 424(3) would show that it should be the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal which passed the order that had to enforce the order and hence an order of the Appellate Tribunal cannot be enforced by the Tribunal. 14. The Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 on the other hand submits that what is sought for is a restitution, which became necessa....