AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
02.02.2026: This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated 26.11.2025 whereby the Ld. NCLT has allowed an application bearing IA No.228/2025 in CP No.166(MB)/2025 allowing the respective shareholders of appellant company to have inspection and the copies of the documents, as have been listed in paras (1) to (6) of prayer (a) of the said IA. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant there has been a chequered history of disputes between the parties and that the company was rather incorporated with two groups of shareholders i.e. Goyal’s as well as Sujanani’s. It is submitted till 2005 the Respondent group was in control of the company but thereafter litigation started between the parties in Bombay High Court and thereafter an arbitration between the parties started in the year 2007. In 2010, the Goyal group had filed a company petition of Oppression and Mismanagement against the appellants herein and it was disposed on 04.03.2015. Further the arbitration award came in the year 2017 which is also under challenge. It is argued in the year 2025 yet another petition for Oppression and Mismanagement was filed by the Respondent - Goyal Group and it has been challenged on grounds of maintainability and it is pending before the Ld. NCLT.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant during the pendency of the proceedings, an IA No.228/2025 was filed by the Respondents herein seeking inspection of certain documents as are stated in prayer clause (1) to (6) of prayer (a) of the said application and it has been allowed by the Ld. NCLT vide the impugned order as follows-:
“Ld. counsel for the Respondents Nos, 1 to 4 and 8 is present in the Court and submits that they have received the copy of the IA only last evening and accordingly seeks time to file a detailed reply. She also submits that the conduct of the Applicant herein has far from being satisfactory and there are litigations going on even before the Hon’ble High Court.
We have considered the facts of the case and the prayers sought in this IA and we are of the opinion that the Applicant herein being shareholder of the Company is entitled to have inspection and copies of the documents as have been listed in Clause 1 to 6 of prayer (a) of the IA.
Accordingly, the Respondent Company and the other Respondents who are in control of the said Company are directed to provide the inspection of the document in terms of the prayers mentioned hereinabove and the Applicant would be entitled to take copies as may be required by him.
It is pertinent to mention the Respondent – Goyal Group are holding 45% shares in the appellant company.
We have also perused the impugned order and have also heard the arguments and we see no reason to upset the impugned order as it only allows an inspection sought for and if such inspection is allowed shall never be to the prejudice of the appellant company, as it being a company, it should, even otherwise, be fair to its shareholders, who are to an extent of 45% shareholding.
Thus we find no merit in the appeal and accordingly it is dismissed.
Pending applications No.829/2026 and 830/2026 are also disposed of.