AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
24.03.2025: These two appeals are against the two impugned orders dated 14.11.24 and 30.12.24. Admittedly, there exist a family dispute between two brothers; both hold 50% -50% shares in Respondent No. 1 company.
The main grievance of the Appellant is the impugned orders dated 14.11.24 as well as dated 30.12.2024 were passed without any cogent reasoning, though this fact is rebutted by the ld. Sr. Counsel for the Respondents. In any case, the company petition is due for hearing before the ld. NCLT on 4.4.25.
It is submitted by the ld. Counsels on both sides they have no objection in case the matter is finally heard by the ld. NCLT. In the circumstances, we request the ld. NCLT to hear the matter on 4.4.25 and to expeditiously dispose it of along with pending applications, preferably within two months from that day.
At this stage, it is submitted by ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant the Respondent company has paid as advance an amount of Rs. 11 crores for purchase of a 3rd flat in the name of the company but the Respondents say such advance was given without any valid Board’s Resolution. In any case, the ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant intends to agitate the issue of valid purchase of the 3rd flat and seeks permission to move an appropriate application before the ld. NCLT in this regard. In case such an application is moved, the ld.NCLT to give an opportunity of hearing to the Respondents and to proceed in accordance with law. Needless to add the impugned orders are ad-interim orders, hence the ld. NCLT to dispose of the petitions(s) in accordance with law being uninfluenced by such ad-interim orders.
Appeals are disposed of.
All pending applications are also disposed of.