Court allowed applicants' application to amend the main original petition to change the respondent company's name post-amalgamation, as it was imperative for proceeding.
Application to amend main OP was acceded to; applicants directed to make amendments by 28.10.2020.
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.
A.No.2329 of 2020 in OP.No.508 of 2014
A.No.2329 of 2020 in OP.No.508 of 2014
M.SUNDAR.J.,
Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel representing the counsel on
record for applicants/petitioners in the captioned application and Mr.K.Chindan, learned counsel of M/s.Menon Karthik Mukundan Neelakantan (Law Firm) for the contesting first respondent are before me in this web hearing on a video conferencing platform. To be noted, the sole Arbitrator, who constituted the Arbitral Tribunal and made the impugned award, which is under challenge in the main OP, has been arrayed as second respondent.
has been amalgamation pursuant to orders passed by Company Courts (Madras and Delhi High Courts), which has necessitated the captioned application with a prayer for amendment. It is further to be noted that the amendment is merely to change the name of the first respondent Company post amalgamation.
A.No.2329 of 2020 in OP.No.508 of 2014
no objection or opposition to the captioned application.
A.No.2329 of 2020 in OP.No.508 of 2014
M.SUNDAR.J.,
kmi
A.No.2329 of 2020 in
OP.No.508 of 2014
08.10.2020 (1/2)
Applicants/Petitioners
First Respondent Company
Second Respondent
M. Sundar J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
