AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Application has been filed by the Appellants seeking the following reliefs: “….
a)Pass an Order allowing the present Application; b) Pass an Order clarifying that Judgment Dated 20.09.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal was a decision limited to the aspect of grant and non-grant of waiver;
c)Pass an Order clarifying that the decision in the Judgment Dated 20.09.2024 may not come in the way of the Applicants/Appellants and the Shareholders who now support the Applicants/ Appellants and meet the threshold criteria under Sections 244(1)(a) and 244(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013 and as such, have a statutory right for urging their matter on merits before the Hon'ble NCLT, Chandigarh Bench;
d)Pass any such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Appellate may deemed just and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
It is claimed by the Appellant that at the time of the filing of the Appeal, they did not meet the threshold and now they are joined by other shareholders, who are now supporting the Company Petition for oppression and mismanagement. Earlier, they were seeking waiver under Section 244 of the Companies Act, 2023 for waiving the requirements under Sections 244(1)(a) or 244(1)(a)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013. But now they represent total shareholding percentage of 10.0989% / 17,21,000 shares in the company i.e. Liberty Shoes Ltd. and they are not required to seek the waiver and they will be filing a petition for oppression and mismanagement before NCLT. They apprehend that the decision of this Appellate Tribunal dated 20.09.2024 in Company Appeal (AT) No. 238 of 2023 should not act as res-judicata when appeal is filed before NCLT.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent contends that the petition is not maintainable. The Appellants have already appealed before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide Diary No. 54476/2024. Furthermore, the facts mentioned by the Appellants are subsequent developments and they can very well agitate their Company Appeal before the NCLT. Respondents also submit that this is an attempt in forum shopping.
After hearing both sides we find that this is a premature intervention application based on subsequent development. The Appellants are at liberty in pursuing the remedies available to them as per law. No clarification can be given under these circumstances. Accordingly, the I.A. is not allowed and dismissed.