Disposed
Greenstone Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. Vikram Ahuja and 4 Others
Bombay HCCAA/17/2016
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
IN THE HIGH COURT
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
907.CAAL-3-2016
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY APPLICATION (L)NO.3 OF 2016 IN COMPANY APPEAL (L) NO.2 OF 2016
Greenstone Investments Pvt. Ltd.
….Applicant/Appellant
Vs. Vikram Ahuja & Ors. ….Respondents
Mr. Ravi Kadam a/w. Mr. Aashish Kamat i/b. Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah for the applicant/appellant.
Mr. Rajiv Narula i/b. Narula & Associates for the respondents.
CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 14th January, 2016
P.C.:-
1 This application is filed against an ad-interim order dated
5th January, 2016 passed by the Company Law Board, New Delhi Bench whereby the appellant was directed not to handle or enter into any transaction in respect of the items mentioned in the said order.
2 The counsel for the appellant submitted, inter alia, that (a) the petition has been pending for long and the kind of order passed, which is impugned has not been passed earlier, (b) the order impugned is without giving any reasons, (c) the order impugned has been passed even though the respondents have not sought relief to that effect and (d) the order impugned has been passed on an assumption that the application for
Gauri Gaekwad
907.CAAL-3-2016
2/3
amendment of the petition filed by the respondents has been allowed. The counsel relied on two judgments of this court in the matter of Deutsche Bank AG vs. Vilas Samant and others1 and Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. vs. R.K. Dhall & others2 .
3 The counsel for the respondent, inter alia, submitted that (a) the ad-interim order did give reasons; (b) the order was passed pursuant to the relief sought in the interim application and (c) it is a lesser relief than that was sought in the interim application based on changed circumstances.
4 After the matter was argued for some time both the counsels,
on instructions suggested the following order by consent be passed. Hence the following order :-
(a) the ad-interim order dated 5th January, 2016 shall come to end at 4.30 p.m. on 15th January, 2016.
(b) It is open for the parties to argue/re-argue all the points before the Company Law Board in the company application no.201 of 2015.
(c) Both the parties undertake not to seek an adjournment tomorrow when company application no.201 of 2015 is directed to be listed.
- (2009) 152 Comp. Cases 609 (Bom)
- (2010) 153 Comp. Cases 150 (Bom.)
Gauri Gaekwad
907.CAAL-3-2016
3/3
5 It is expected that the Company Law Board while passing any order in the company application no.201 of 2015 shall give reasons for the order and it will be after hearing both the parties.
6 The company application and company appeal accordingly stand disposed.
7 All parties to act on ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate of this Court.
(K.R.SHRIRAM,J)
Gauri Gaekwad
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Deutsche Bank AG vs. Vilas Samant and othersReferred¶18
(2009) 152 Comp. Cases 609 (Bom)
Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. vs. R.K. Dhall & othersReferred¶18
(2010) 153 Comp. Cases 150 (Bom.)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Greenstone Investments Pvt. Ltd.
Vikram Ahuja
K.R. Shriram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court