AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Mayank Wadhwa, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Ashish Middha, Ld. Counsel who has appeared on advance notice on behalf of Respondent No. 2 to 5.
The present appeal has been preferred for following reliefs:
a) “Modify the Impugned Order dated 09/06/2023 passed by the Hon'ble NCLT, Chandigarh in the C.P. No. 68/Chd/Hry/2023 to the extent of granting the interim relief 14(d) sought by the Appellant in the company petition whereby access to the company registered office is sought along with access to the official domain and email IDs are sought;
b) Direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to restore access of the Respondent No. 1 office and company records to the Appellant and Respondent No. 8 who is the whole-time director of the company;
c) Direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to restore access to official email ID of the Respondent No. 1 to the Appellant and Respondent No. 8;
d) Enable the Respondent No. 8 to manage the affairs of the Respondent No. I in the same manner as prior to the restrain on access to the official email ID;
e) Appoint a Local Commissioner/administrator/auditor to seize, sign and authenticate the minute books of the Board Meetings, Minute Books of the General Meetings, all books of accounts and all other records of the Respondent No. 1 Company and act as a representative in place of the Respondent No. 2, 3 and 8 to verify the illegal and fraudulent transactions of the Respondent No. 1 carried out through Respondent No. 2 to 5;
f) Appoint a Local Commissioner/administrator/auditor to seize, sign and authenticate the minute books of the Board Meetings, Minute Books of the General Meetings, all books of accounts and all records of the Respondent No. 6 and 7 Company;”
Ld. Counsel for the Appellant tried to persuade the court that the interim relief which was sought for before the NCLT in a petition filed under Section 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013 was required to be allowed. However, same has not been dealt with and direction was given for issuance of notices to the concerned party.
Besides hearing, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Ashish Middha, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 to 5, we have perused the materials available on record particularly the impugned order. After examining the Impugned order, it is evident that the Ld. NCLT on the application filed by the Appellant under Section 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013 has directed for issuance of notice and in the meanwhile also directed to maintain status quo regarding the shareholding patterns and next date has been fixed to 07.08.2023. In such situation we are of the opinion that there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. If Appellant desires he may file appropriate application before the NCLT. If such application is filed, we expect that NCLT may examine and pass appropriate order in accordance with law on the date fixed.
With above observation, the appeal stands dismissed.