AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HYBRID MODE
This appeal is filed by the appellant against an impugned order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the Ld. NCLT, Mumbai in CP No.1300/MB/2020 as under:-
“2.It is noted that there is no Administrator in place to manage the affairs of the Company, accordingly, we feel that the Board of Directors are competent to manage and conduct the business of the Company as of now till any changes are made in the Administrative structure. However, the Board of Directors of the Respondent Company may consider inclusion of the Petitioner as well in the decision making process.”
It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the appellant was earlier a director in the Company but was removed in the year 2020 and he filed the Company Petition challenging his removal as also on other grounds. Admittedly his removal is subject to the disposal of the company petition. During the pendency of this petition the impugned order was passed and it is argued though the Ld. NCLT has directed his inclusion in the decision making process may be considered by the Board of Directors but the Board of Directors comprising of the respondents are reluctant to do so. Admittedly the petition is now listed for arguments on 20.03.2026 hence it is argued till the decision of the company petition, the appellant may also be included in the Board. Admittedly the appellant is shareholder to an extent of 8.37% though he claims his shareholding earlier was 20% but with the right issue, under challenge, his shareholding was brought down to 8.37%.
However, the learned senior counsel argued despite the fact he has been removed from the Board of Directors he is still holding on to company’s asset viz the hotel premises and is not allowing anyone to enter there. Be that as it may since the question of his removal as a director is pending before Ld. NCLT and since the company petition is now listed on 20.03.2026 for final arguments, though now it is alleged the appellant has also moved an amendment application which may take sometime, but in these circumstances we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order but rather direct the Respondents to comply with the same and may include the appellant in the major policy decisions. Since both the parties are ad-idem the hotel is not sold as yet, hence status quo be maintained qua ownership and possession of the said hotel till the decision of the company petition.
With these observations, we dispose of this appeal.
Pending applications 1640/2026, 1641/2026 and 1642/2026are also disposed of.