Dismissed

Simplex Crane Services Pvt.Ltd. and Anr. v. Mr.Pravin C. Chheda and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Sept 2013COAPP/56/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Mumbai High Court dismissed appeals against the Company Law Board's order permitting amendments to company petitions. The Board allowed amendments to include subsequent events. The High Court upheld the Board's discretion to avoid multiplicity of proceedings between related parties.

What did the court decide?

Both Company Appeals were dismissed in the above terms.

Simplex Crane Services Pvt.Ltd. and Anr. Vs Mr.Pravin… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

24coappl68&67-13fl.sxw

¶2

spb/

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

COMPANY APPEAL (L) NO. 68 OF 2013 IN CLB COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 165 OF 2013 IN CLB COMPANY PETITION NO. 36 OF 2011

¶5

Simplex Crane Services Pvt.Ltd., & Anr.

¶6

… Appellants. (Org.R.Nos.1 & 2)

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Mr. Pravin C. Chheda … Respondent-1. (Org. Petitioner) 2. Mr. Kirti C. Chheda … Respondent-2 (Org. R. No.3.)

¶9

¶10

WITH

¶11

COMPANY APPEAL (L) NO. 67 OF 2013 IN CLB COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2013 IN CLB COMPANY PETITION NO. 37 OF 2011

¶12

Lirin Road Lince Pvt.Ltd., & Anr.

¶13

… Appellants. (Org.R.Nos.1 & 2)

¶14

V/s.

¶15

Mr. Pravin C. Chheda … Respondent-1. (Org. Petitioner) 2. Mr. Kirti C. Chheda … Respondent-2 (Org. R. No.3.)

¶16

Mr. P.D. Sampat i/by Vilas Jadhav for the Appellants in both the Appeals. Mr. Gaurav Mehta i/by Dhiren Akbari for Respondent No.1. Mr. Rajeev Deokar for Respondent No.2.

¶17

1/4

¶18

Borey

¶19

24coappl68&67-13fl.sxw

¶20

spb/

¶21

CORAM : N. M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 25 SEPTEMBER, 2013

¶22

P.C. :

¶23

1 Both the above Appeals challenge the order passed by the Company Law Board, allowing amendment to the respective Company Petitions. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Applications for amendment were made on the ground that the additional affidavits seek to bring on the record subsequent facts / events that have been taken place after filing of the Petitions. The learned Member of the Company Law Board has permitted the amendments, in view of the fact that what was being brought on the record were subsequent events.

¶24

2 The learned counsel Appellants have sought to urge various grounds. The learned counsel submits that by order dated 20^th January, 2013, this Court had directed the Company Law Board to dispose of the Petitions in a time bound manner and thereafter, extension was given, which expires on 9^th October, 2013. The learned counsel submits that by the amendments cause of action is sought to be changed and new prayers are sought to be brought on the record. The learned counsel submits that the averments made in the affidavits are in variance with the existing pleadings in the company Petitions. The learned counsel submits that in view thereof, the impugned orders, permitting the additional affidavits/ amendments, be set aside.

2/4

Borey

spb/

24coappl68&67-13fl.sxw

¶29

3 The learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the parties are brothers and the events which have been sought to be brought on record have taken place after filing of the Petitions. The learned counsel submits that it is in the interest of justice that the matter is decided at one time so that there is no multiplicity of the proceedings. It is submitted that the Appellants have already filed their Reply and the matter is scheduled for hearing.

¶30

4 Considering the fact that the parties are related, it is always desirable that multiplicity of proceedings is avoided. It is in the interest of the parties that one authority considers all aspects of the matter and strives to put an end to the litigation. No purpose will be achieved by directing the Respondents to file separate petitions, as it will needlessly embroil the family in further litigation. The discretion used by the Company Law Board cannot be faulted with. Even otherwise, the Appellants have filed their Reply and the matter is ready for hearing.

¶31

5 It is clarified that the Appellants will be entitled to raise arguments which are sought to be made in the present Appeals, namely, that the amended portion is in variance with the existing pleadings and on that ground no relief should be granted in respect of the amended prayers, at the time of hearing. These arguments, of course, will be dealt with on merits by the Company Law Board.

3/4

Borey

spb/

24coappl68&67-13fl.sxw

¶36

6 In view thereof, I do not find any merits in these Appeals and both the Appeals are accordingly disposed of in the above terms.

¶37

(N.M.JAMDAR,J.)

¶38

4/4

¶39

Borey

Simplex Crane Services Pvt.Ltd. and Anr. v. Mr.Pravin C. Chheda and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Simplex Crane Services Pvt.Ltd. and Anr. v. Mr.Pravin C. Chheda and Anr.

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

Prashant Surendra Tanna Vs Official Liquidator of Suprapti Plastics Ltd.

Mrs. Priyanka Abhjit Pawar Vs Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay of M/S. Devidayal Industries Ltd.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs the the Official Liquidator of Zadona Electronics in Liqn.

Abdul Wahid Abdul Gaffor Khatri and Ors. Vs M/S.Safe Heights Developers Pvt.Ltd. and Ors.

Jigar Kanti Cheeda Prop of Divya Construction Vs Chawla Inter-Bild Construction Co. Private Limited. Cin No. U45200MH1983PTC031716

Simplex Crane Services Pvt.Ltd. and Anr. Vs Pravin C. Chheda and Anr.