Tribunals and CommissionsFull Bench(2024) 04 NCLAT CK 0084

Viva Highway Ltd vs LIC Housing Finance Ltd. & Anr

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 26 April 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rakesh Kumar Jain, Member (J) · Barun Mitra, Member (T) · Naresh Salecha, Member (T)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1471 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 267 words

Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain: (Oral)

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1471 of 2023

1.

This appeal arises from the order dated 20.10.2023 by which an application bearing I.A. No. 48 of 2023 filed by the present Appellant in the main petition i.e. CP (IB) No. 312 /MB-IV/2023 came to be dismissed on the ground that the Applicant has no locus standi to intervene in the proceedings arising out of the application filed under Section 7 of the Code which is being contested by the Company (CD).

2.

Counsel for the Appellant has drawn our attention to the shareholders agreement and contended that the Company has committed a default because the Company is being run by the minority shareholders.

3.

On the other hand, Counsel for Respondent, while referring to Clause 4.1 of the same agreement, has submitted that the power has been conferred to Naresh Karda who is one of the directors of the minority group, therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the Appellant to raise this issue.

4.

We have heard Counsel for the parties and after examining the record are of the considered opinion that there is no error in the impugned order which has been assailed in this appeal because for the purpose of deciding the application filed under Section 7, the Court has to see as to whether the Company is in debt and has committed default and not beyond especially regarding the dispute between minority and majority shareholders.

5.

Thus, in our view, there is hardly any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.