Allowed

M/S. Mars Therapeutics and Chemicals Public Limited v. Sri C.N. Ramesh

Telangana HC7 Jun 2012CAPPEAL/14/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court set aside an earlier order of the Company Law Board due to a subsequent amicable settlement between the parties. The main appeal was disposed of, and the 3 associated company applications were dismissed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Company Law Board was set aside; Company Appeal No.14 of 2011 was disposed of. Company Applications Nos.1519 of 2011 and 586 of 2012 were dismissed as infructuous.

M/S. Mars Therapeutics and Chemicals Public Limited… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

COMPANY APPEAL No.14 OF 2011 ALONG WITH COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.1519 OF 2011 AND 586 OF 2012

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

This appeal is filed against the order of the Company Law Board, Additional Principal Bench, Chennai, in C.A.No.20 of 2011 in C.P.No.33 of 2006 dated 26.08.2011.

¶5

At the stage of admission, notice was ordered on the respondents, and thereafter Sri S. Ravi, Learned Counsel, entered appearance on behalf of the respondents. On 04.06.2012, it was represented that the Learned Counsel is no longer appearing on behalf of the respondents, and no objection vakalat had been handed over to the respondents. Despite having obtained no objection vakalat, the respondents have chosen not to enter appearance through any other Counsel and the Registry, by its endorsement dated 06.06.2012, informs that no vakalat had been filed thereafter on behalf of the respondents.

¶6

Sri T. Surya Satish, Learned Counsel for the appellants, would draw attention of this Court to the joint memo filed both by the appellants and the respondents before the Company Law Board informing the Company Law Board that the parties had settled their disputes amicably. The Company Law Board, in a subsequent application filed in C.P.No.33 of 2006, recorded that a settlement had been arrived at, and disposed of the Company Applications pending before it as withdrawn.

¶7

In view of the subsequent settlement entered into between the parties, and as the disputes have been amicably resolved between themselves, the earlier order of the Company Law Board in C.A.No.20 of 2011 in C.P.No.33 of 2006 dated 26.08.2011 must be, and is

¶8

accordingly, set aside.

¶9

Company Appeal No.14 of 2011 is disposed of accordingly. All the Company Applications filed in Company Appeal No.14 of 2011 i.e., Company Application Nos.1519 of 2011 and 586 of 2012 would not survive disposal of the said Company Appeal and are, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous.

¶10

_____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J June 07, 2012 MD

¶11

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶12

COMPANY APPEAL No.14 OF 2011 ALONG WITH

¶13

COMPANY APPLICATION Nos.1519 OF 2011 AND 586 OF 2012

¶14

June 07, 2012

¶15

M/S. Mars Therapeutics and Chemicals Public Limited v. Sri C.N. Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Mars Therapeutics and Chemicals Public Limited v. Sri C.N. Ramesh

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

M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs M/s.Vah Magna Retail Pvt.Ltd.

P.Venugopal Reddy Vs Dr. D.Sambasiva Rao I.A.S.

Srhhl Industries Limited Vs -

Metkore Alloys and Industries Limited, Vs -

Wordworks Apex Ites (India) Private Limited Vs -

Apex Logical Data Conversion Private Limited Vs -