Disposed

Mohit Khullar and 3 Ors. v. Svc Resources Ltd. and 7RS.

Bombay HC4 Sept 2013COAPP/49/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court disposed of the appeal regarding a request to convene an EOGM and alleged breach of Company Law Board orders. The court noted breaching orders could be challenged separately and dismissed the plea for adjournment, disposing of the appeal and accompanying application. Relief sought was granted as adjudication was completed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal and the accompanying company application were disposed of without keeping points open or granting adjournment.

Mohit Khullar and 3 Ors. Vs Svc Resources Ltd… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

18caal62-13.sxw

¶2

spb/

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPEAL (L.) NO. 62 OF 2013 WITH COMPANY APPLICATION (L.) NO. 65 OF 2013 IN COMPANY APPEAL (L.) NO. 62 OF 2013 IN CLB COMPANY PETITION NO. 31 OF 2013

¶4

Mohit Khullar

¶5

... Applicant.

¶6

In the matter between :

Mohit Khullar & Ors.

... Appellants.

V/s.

SVC Resources Ltd. & Ors.

¶11

...Respondents.

¶12

Mr. Zal Andhyarujina with Mayur Khandepalkar with Kirtida Chandarana /by Mahernosh Humaranuwala for for the Applicant/Appellants.

¶13

Mr.Akshat Gupta, the Respondent No.6 present-in-person.

¶14

CORAM : N. M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 04^th SEPTEMBER, 2013

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

1 This appeal was heard alongwith the company appeal (ldg.) no.60 of 2013 on 26^th August, 2013 and certain orders were passed in the company appeal (ldg.) no. 60/013 and the appeal was disposed of. By that time present appeal was directed to be placed on board for direction. The date was informed in the

1/5

Borey

spb/

18caal62-13.sxw

presence of the respondent no.2 and the learned counsel for respondent no.2.

¶22

2 Today, when the appeal is called out, the representative of the respondent no. 2 informs the court that the respondent no.2 has gone out of station for religious purpose and will not be able to attend the hearing. The learned counsel for the appellant takes a strong objection to the request and points out that similar requests have been made in the past before the company law board and in spite of the full knowledge that the matter will he beard today, the request for adjournment is made only to prolong the hearing of the appeal. This grievance is justified and I am not inclined to adjourn the hearing.

¶23

3 The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the orders passed on 12^th June,2013 and on 19^th June, 2013 though are substantially in favour of the appellant, the appellant is aggrieved by the refusal of the company law board to permit the petitioner to call and convene the EOGM at their own costs. The learned counsel submits that while refusing this request, the company law board has directed the company to hold a

2/5

Borey

spb/

18caal62-13.sxw

meeting to consider the matter set out for the requisite notice dated 3.4.2013 in accordance with the provisions of the Company Act. The learned counsel submits that by order dated 19^th February, 2013, the same learned Member has expressed that he expects that the company court will hold EOGM within a period of 45 days, commencing from 12^th June, 2013. The learned counsel submits that the respondent has breached these two orders, as can be seen from the pronouncement made on the website of the company on 1^st July, 2013.

¶29

4 Thus the grievance of the appellant, primarily appears to be twofold. Firstly, refusing to permit the appellant to call/convene the EOGM and secondly, regarding the breach of the orders passed on 12^th June, 2013 and 19^th June, 2013.

¶30

5 The main issue is whether the EOGM should be held, as directed. It appears that if the EOGM is held by the company as per the requisition, then the appellant, at this stage, will not have any grievance. If it is the case of the appellant that the orders mentioned above are breached it will be open to

3/5

Borey

spb/ 18caal62-13.sxw

the appellant to make a grievance about the conduct of the respondent to the company law board in not obeying the orders passed. It is informed that Misc. Application No. 108 of 2013 is already filed for that purpose. Therefore, it will be in the fitness of the things that the company law board takes up this application for hearing at the earliest. It is informed that the respondent no.2 has filed certain proceedings, challenging the maintainability of the petitions filed by the appellant. These two proceedings should be taken up together by the company law board. However, considering the conduct of the respondent as alleged by the appellant and the fact that the orders have been passed far back on 12^th June, 2013, if the respondent no.2 seeks to take time in the proceedings challenging the maintainability of the petition, that will not automatically entail adjournment in the application filed by the appellant.

¶35

6 It is informed that the date for hearing of the application for maintainability is fixed on 25^th September, 2013. On that date the application filed by the appellant will also be taken up for arguments. It will be open for the parties to complete the

4/5

Borey

spb/

18caal62-13.sxw

pleadings until the next date so that no further adjournments are necessary.

¶41

7 In view of this position, it is not necessary to keep the appeal pending. Keeping all the points of the parties open, the appeal is disposed of. Accordingly, the company application (ldg.) No. 65 of 2013 is also disposed of.

¶42

8 The representative of the party in person states that in view of the disposal of the appeal in the above terms, he is not pressing his request for adjournment of the appeal on the ground that the respondent no.2 is not present.

¶43

5/5

¶44

Borey

Mohit Khullar and 3 Ors. v. Svc Resources Ltd. and 7RS.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Khullar and 3 Ors. v. Svc Resources Ltd. and 7RS.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uma Shankar Mishra Vs Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay for M/S. Shriniwas Cotton Mills Ltd. (in Liqn.)

Vinergy International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Unimers India Limited

Srm Energy Limited Vs

Modern Cargo Services Private Ltd, Vs Premier Supplies and Services Private Limited - U74140MH2004PTC149211

Premier Supplies and Services Limited Vs Official Liquidator of Premier Supplies and Services

M/S. Desarch Pentacles Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S.Gemini Equipn Pvt. Ltd.