TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1402
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ined under Section 241, 242 and 246 of the Companies Act, 2013 by filing the company petition before the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court-II on 23.02.2026. If we look into the nature of dispute in context of array of parties, it seems to be an inter se dispute between the family members, wherein the petitioner to the company petition had come with the petition with an allegation of an act of Oppression and Mismanagement. The petitioner's case was that, the petitioner is a shareholder of M/s Rukshmani Syntex Pvt. Ltd. and was holding 45,993 equity shares of face value of Rs.100 each and had a fully paid-up shares constituting 37.09% of the issued and paid-up capital share of the company. ii) The company is engaged in the business of weaving yarns into fabric from its operational factory at Silvassa, observing that respondent no.2 was a Director and share-holder of the company holding 45,993 equity shares constituting 37.09% of issued and paid-up share capital of the Company. The respondent no.2 in the present company petition is an elder brother of the petitioner/ the appellant herein. iii) The respondent no. 3 in the company petition is a min....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 February 2026, at which (i) the Petitioner was purportedly removed from the office of Whole-Time Director, and (ii) it was resolved to convene an Extraordinary General Meeting for the purpose of considering the Petitioner's removal as Director, is illegal, invalid and non set in law, and that all resolutions passed thereat and actions taken pursuant thereto are void and of no effect; (d) To declare that any Extraordinary General Meeting for the purpose of considering a resolution for removal of the Petitioner from the office of Director of Respondent No. 1 Company, including the Extraordinary General Meeting proposed to be convened pursuant to notice dated 17 February 2026, is illegal, invalid and non est in law, and that any resolutions passed thereat and actions taken pursuant thereto are void and of no effect; (e) To direct that the management of Respondent No. 1 Company be conducted strictly on the basis of mutual consent of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2, in accordance with the Family Settlement and the agreed governance framework, and to pass such further directions as may be necessary to restore joint management and prevent unilateral control of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctorship and the consequential intimation given to the Registrar of Companies, but still while considering the aforesaid facts and while accepting the contentions raised by the petitioner, the appellant herein, before Ld. Tribunal. The respondent gave a 'no objection' for maintaining the status quo, in the company petition, accordingly, the proceedings of the company petition remained pending till it was taken before the Ld. Tribunal on 09.03.2026, while referring to the relief sought and particularly the relief relating to Clause-F, which pertained to the offer extended by the petitioner to purchase the petitioner's entire share-holding in respondent no.1 Company, as well as the beneficial interest in respondent no.1 company. Substituting the condition that, a fair value was required to be determined the independent valuer was to be appointed by the Tribunal, together with such further directions as may be necessary. The Ld. Tribunal subject to the exceptions as carved out therein because of the fact that, there was an offer that the respondent would be considering to buy out the share of the applicant petitioner, as it was prayed in 'Relief-F' and the same was agreeable by the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f his shares and per order dated 09.03.2026 the Valuer was to be appointed but prior to the appointment of such Valuer, the respondents are going ahead to dispose of the movable assets of the Company and reference was made to pages nos. 623, 624 and 625 of the appeal paper book. He has also referred to an interim order dated 05.03.2026 wherein status quo was granted qua the assets of the Company, however, on 09.03.2026, it was wrongly vacated. 3. In any case, the question of the appointment of the Valuer is still pending before the Ld. NCLT and is listed on 27.04.2026. Since, admittedly the Valuers have not been so appointed hence it will be appropriate if the matter is listed on 13.04.2026 before us for hearing and till then the order dated 05.03.2026 of the Ld. NCLT shall continue. 4. Let the matter be listed on 13.04.2026 as a fresh case." If, we look into the order passed by this Tribunal on 27.03.2026, in fact, the revival of the status quo order by this Tribunal, was restrictively confined on the ground that since the question of appointment of valuer in pursuance to the order of 09.03.2026 was still pending before the Ld. NCLT and the valuer has not been....