AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
20.09.2022: Heard Ms. Nivedita R Sarda, Ld counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Naresh Kr. Sejvani, Ld Counsel for the Respondent No.1&2.
The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against an order dated 28.04.2022 passed by the ‘National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘NCLT) in CP No. 34/241-242/JPR/2018 and CP No. 214/241-242/ND/2018.
By the said order, the Ld. NCLT after noticing the fact that the Appellant who was having only 25% shares has disposed of major portion of the property of the Company either to his wife or other relatives, has passed interim order to maintain ‘status quo’. The direction has issued in para 23 of the ‘impugned order’ which is quoted herein below:
“23 – In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal deems it fit to order as follows:
a)The Respondent Company, Kamal Kunj Developers Private Limited (CIN U45201RJ2005PTC021841), shall maintain status quo on/of all immoveable properties of the company.
b)No third party interest shall be created through sale, agreement to sell, rental, lease, mortgage, lien or by any other means which has the effect of creating an encumbrance on the property of the aforesaid company.
c)Further, Respondent No.16 i.e. Sub Registrar-II, Ajmer, Rajasthan, is hereby directed not to register any document(s) in respect of whole or any part of the property of the aforesaid company, including any unit within the aforesaid commercial shopping complex, namely Shree Trade/Shree Swami Shopping Centre (Old property Shree Talkies) without prior permission/ order of the Tribunal.
d)The above reliefs shall be operative till the next effective date of hearing and may be modified if required in the future. The question of any other/ further reliefs to any of the parties through the course of this litigation is kept open”
Ld counsel for the Appellant tried to persuade the court that the Respondents were not having any locus to file petition before the NCLT and the same was not maintainable. Ld counsel for the Appellant has further raised a question of jurisdiction of the NCLT and submits that NCLT is not having jurisdiction to pass order for ‘cancelling’ or ‘interfering’ with the sale deed. It has also been argued that without affording any proper opportunity to the Appellant, the impugned order has been passed which needs to be interfered with.
Mr. Naresh Kr. Sejvani, Ld counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2 opposing the prayer and has referred to para 13 and 20 of the impugned order. By way of referring to para 13, he submits that despite valid service of notice, the Appellant herein has preferred not to file detailed reply. It would be better to reproduce para 13 & 20 and the same is depicted herein below:
“13.In respect of Respondent Nos.2,4&9, notice was duly accepted by the counsel appearing on their behalf. In the hearing on 01.01.2019, it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal by the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2, 4 & 9 that the concerned company (Kamal Kunj Developers Pvt. Ltd.) had been struck off by the RoC and an appeal under Section 252 had been filed in such regard.
20.Replies of Respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 in CP No. 214/241-242/ND/2018 had been filed in December, 2018, soon after institution of the Petition.”
Ld counsel for the Respondent has further drawn our attention to the impugned order itself to elaborate that the Appellant was having only 25% of the share and it is not in dispute that major portion of the property of the Company has been transferred either to his wife or relatives of the Appellant. He further submits that the Appellant is only interested to delay the final disposal of the main petition which is pending before the NCLT, filed under Section 241-242 of the Act.
Besides hearing Ld counsel for the parties, we have perused the materials available on record. Facts remain that before the NCLT, despite valid service of notice, the Appellant has preferred not to file proper reply. Normally, if an order is passed by a ‘Court’ where no reply is filed and it is not contested, the same person is not entitled to assail the order before the ‘Appellate Authority’. However, without going into such dispute, considering the fact which is not disputed that the Appellant has already transferred the major portion of the property either his wife or other relatives, we consider that by passing order for maintaining status quo, the NCLT has committed no error.
We are of the considered opinion that once the Ld. NCLT has passed an order for maintaining a ‘status quo’ during pendency of the Petition, filed under Section 241-242 of the Act, the Ld. NCLT has committed no error. It is also not in dispute that main petition was filed in the year 2018 and till date no final disposal has been taken. Accordingly, while dismissing the present appeal, it is desirable to observe that Ld NCLT may take appropriate steps for disposal of the main petition so that all the disputes may come to an end at the earliest.
With above observations, the Appeal stands dismissed.