Dismissed

M/s. Shubham Transoceanic Pvt. Ltd. v. The Company Law Board

Telangana HC12 Apr 2023WP/21194/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dismissed three writ petitions filed under Article 226 and Section 151 CPC as infructuous. The petitioners sought quashing of Company Law Board orders and stays. Counsel informed the Court that the abolition of the Company Law Board had transferred matters to the National Company Law Tribunal, where applications were dismissed due to non-appearance by the unofficial respondent, w

What did the court decide?

Granted liberty to aggrieved parties to seek restoration from the National Company Law Tribunal; dismissed writ petitions as infructuous.

M/s. Shubham Transoceanic Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Company… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

:":"1T:#ilif,{fi.r,[f^{:,,::;^."^.^}

¶3

'?flff ;fl 8l.lT,:.^KEiHfl f J,",i#J'.

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON,BLE SRI JUSilCE K. LAKSHMAN WP NO.2 WRITPET TIoN NOS:21 19 211 43 AND 21 1 94 OF 2010 11 93 OF 20 10:

Between:

AND

...PETITIONERS

;$!;1fu :!ilitiahitwasHE:.,f,"",:,il,in;i:,il.,R,o14.657

¶12

petion under Articre 226 of the Constution of tndia ,.";;,ir.ii3ii".lilj circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order o' direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari caring for records pertaining to company Apprication No' 1 1 7 0f 201 0 in company petition No.45 0f 2009 from the fire of the .r st respond.ent and on perusar of the same be preased to quash the orders passed by the^'r st respondent dated 27.7 -20'r 0 and consequentiary dismiss the company petition No.45 of 2009 as not maintainable in the interest of justice

¶13

1.A. NO:2 oF 2010(WPMP. NO: 26969 oF 2010)

¶14

Petition under Section 1Si CpC praying.hat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay all further proceedings in company petition No.4s of 2009 pending on the fire of the 1st respondent during the pendency of the present writ petition

¶15

t.A.^NO .. 1 OF^{2010 wvMP.NO:6027oF201 0}

¶16

Between: "" ^ ' ^^1"^^ar'/ana^{Business R/o 14-6-57'} S/oSatvanarav'],"'.r'o*'*'z^o RTSPoNDENT

¶17

y:n**lililS?,?:adlss3d19'

¶18

AND

¶19

,u!iit:'fly"EliH:li::Bhx1,i$i',[ltrdtlijPi""#:[1]'fi ii;'Xd;"1ff#?J ia Business^{FUo 5-e-30/1/4/3'}

¶20

,H! jl.ilS:,:S,#:,1',Xti,il3;?t"'.i"',1fl ,5S,1'iqggi3ENrs,pE,,oNERS 3. The^{companyLaw Board' Addl'Principle eench at-c$e'[sllDENrlRESPoNDENr}

¶21

petition under section^{1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit^{fired in support of the petition, the High court maybe pleasedto} vacate^{the interimorder dt: 25 08 2010 granted in WP MP No 26969 of 2010 in} WP no.^{21193 of 2010}

¶22

Counsel^{for the Petitioner: SRI DEEPAK MISRA}

¶23

counserror^{Respondent No. 1:} BErt+?'SS$XFfJ[['Jl,tt^L^{oF rNDrA}

¶24

Counsel^{for Respondent No' 2: SRI VIKRAM POOSERLA}

¶25

WP NO: 21143^{oF 2010}

¶26

Between:

¶27

1 Shruti Agro Farms^{Ltd.,a company registerbd under the' lndian Compjtnies} a"i ibsaYr,avino its Reoistlieci oliice-at^{19-2-226,Mir AlamTankRoad'} A;ii;;;d';; tiy,iiirr'oid,-iup.ov^{its Manasins Director, sri JitenderKumar} Kedia

¶28

2 'frliJit"na"r. Kumar Kedia, S/o.Gutzarilal Kedia Business R/o.5-9-30/1/4/3, n"io tto.s, Basheerbagh^{paracecolonyHyderabad-500029} ...pETrroNERS

¶29

AND

¶30

The Company Law Board,Addl.Prlnciple^{Bench at Chennai.} Z. MrXaiiash Nirayan^{Bhangadiya, S/o.Satyanarayana Business F/o.1 4-6-57'} Begumbazar Hyderabad-500012

¶31

...RES'ONDENT'

¶32

petition under Article 22 6 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the a ffidavit fited therewith, the High Court may be pleasEd to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the

¶33

i I ! I I i I I

¶34

nature of writ of Ce(iorari calling for records pertaining to company Apptication No.1 15 of 2O1O in company Petition No.43 of 2009 f rom the file^{of the 1 st} respondent and on^{p6rusal of the same be pleased to quash the orders passedby} the 1st respondent dated^{27 .7.2010 and consequentiallydismiss the company} petition No.43 of 2009 as not maintainable^{in the interestof} iustice

¶35

t.A. NO: 2 OF 2010 MP. NO: 26908^OF2010)

¶36

Petition under^{Section tSt CPC} PraYing^{that in the circumstances statedin}

¶37

the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High court maybe preased to stay} all further^{proceedings in companypetition No 43 of 2009 pending on the file of} the 1st^{respondentduring the pendencyof the presentwrit petitionin the interest} of^justice

¶38

MP. NO^{: 6028OF2010} l.A. NO:1^{oF 2010}

¶39

Between:

¶40

H:$,*fl^{:ililil'"?."':Elunffi}

¶41

S/o.Satyanarayana^{Business R/o 14-6-57'}

¶42

....PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶43

^-?ililiof'1'ru#i::ii',".[tr'"arult"'F.".uf dif':?lr,fl,}"i

¶44

,ft1!ft:ffi r,*ti#;it,l;:,"":',nl1n::llifl$'H,'"#'J4

¶45

3.^{The companvLawBoard'Addl'Principle aencnat c{EgpSko'''=t"onot*'}

¶46

Petition^{underSection 151CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in} the^{affidavitfiled in supportof the petition'the High Courtmaybe pleased vacate} the^{interim order dt' 25'8'2o1]in WPMP'No'26908of 2010in W'P No '21143 of}

¶47

2010

¶48

Cor4gsel^{for the Petitioner:SRI DEEPAK MISRA}

¶49

Counsel for Respondent No. 1: SRI cADl PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶50

Counset for Respondent No. 2: SRI VIKRAM POOSERLA

¶51

WP NO: 21194 0 F 2010

¶52

Between:

¶53

Ml/s. Shubham Tra

¶54

Ltd ' 1s-2'226' Miraram

¶55

,^{p*:*t##iJ..=,.;;:U3 ,Pvt} Tank Road, noaoirots;;;,.ist,[331ie3,"";"",ili3lli,riliiiif,1.:Tssgs 5-9-30t1/4t3,

¶56

AND

¶57

,..PETITIONERS

¶58

;,#,f?",all[]]",,ffi1j#':',rHi3fi::j,3tg[i jll,ij..,,"

¶59

14-6-57.

¶60

...RES PONOENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia prayrng that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Wril, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari c alling for records pertaining to Company Application No. 116 of 2O10in compan y Petition No. 44 of 2009 from the file of the 1st Respondent and on perusal of t he same be pleased to quash the orders passed by the ist Respondent dt. 2 7-07-2010 and consequentially dismiss the Company petition No. 44 of 2009 as not maintainable in the interest of justice

¶61

;2 OF 20 1 WPfltP NO 70 OF 0 Petition under Section 1 5 .' CPC

¶62

the affida praying that in the circumstances stated in vit filed in support of the petiti all further proceedings in Company pet on, the High Court may be pleased to stay the 1st Re spondent during the pendenc ition No. 44 of 2009 pending on the file of ofiustice y of the present Writ petition in the intere st

¶63

I I

¶64

t.A.NQ: 10F2 010 MP.No; 6055 OF 20 10 Between:

¶65

AND

¶66

....PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶67

' [q##fuf*,d^Fsuffi :x,,rff #H#:]Hi;] ffi

¶68

'MiJ"^ffi :Affi :.["nfl?f :"d"":gil,fl ,n".:a.lus,J.?sNos_e_30/1/4,3,

¶69

3'rhecompanvLawBoard,Addr.principrer;;;iS;i"rir"JIIENrs/pErroNERs

¶70

"'RESP.NDENTiRE''.NDENT

¶71

"'RESP.NDENTiRE''.NDENT petitjon under section i5i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to vacate the interim order dated 2S.0g.2010 granted i l rv srirnr€d n WpMpNo.269l0 of 2O1O in WpNo.21 194 of 2010

¶72

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI DEEpAK MISRA

¶73

counserrorRespondenrNo.l:BEiE+?,.lffJ,.rEt[rJ[t[h.oFrNDrA

¶74

Counsel for Respondent No. 2: SRI VTKRAM POOSERLA

¶75

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶76

I I I i t

¶77

t: I !j I I

¶78

HON'BLE^{SRI.IUSTICE K' LAKSHMAN} WRIT PETITI^{ONNos.2 I193,21143AND21194 oF 2010} ORA L ORDER:

¶79

Mr. I)eepak^{Misra, learned counselfor the petitionersin all} the writ^{petitions, *6u[d 5ui.]rrlitthat after abolitionof Company} Law Board,^{the matterswere transfeffedto the National Company} Law I'ribunal,^{which in tum'dismissedthe applicationshled by} the unofhcial^{respoudenttbr delaultlhey have not filed any} applications^{seeking restoration so lar'ln view of the same'} nothing temains^{in the present writ petitionsto adjudicate further} and all the^{writ petitionsbecame infructuous'Hor.r'ever' he seeks} liberty to take^{stepsto restorc the presentwrit petitions if unolficial} respondeut files^{rcstoration applicationsbeforethe National} Company Law^Tribunal.

¶80

Granting liberly, as^{sought, all these Writ Petitions are}

¶81

dismissed as infructuous

¶82

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if^{any. pending}

¶83

in the Writ Petitions shall stand closed.

¶84

s D/''^"'t'S+f'tf HHBiSHRf; ttrRUE coPYtt sEcfloN JFFTCER

¶85

sEcfloN ro, T i 9ne^{3t:33 CC to} 3^Sri 3Il Vikara3::r3t#:.#f[l?:1f:rslli:Sj[citor Genera, (opuc) ,E 1.^{r wo CD Copies} 6J" -,--

¶86

¶87

HIGH COURT
DATED: 1210412023
.$
.+
,F-:
<br>COMMON ORDER

¶88

WP NOS: 21193,21143 AND 21194 OF 2010

¶89

D'SM'SSING IHE WR'I PEI'I'ONS AS ,NFRUCTUOUS, wtTHotJT cosls

M/s. Shubham Transoceanic Pvt. Ltd. v. The Company Law Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Shubham Transoceanic Pvt. Ltd. v. The Company Law Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yaskhi Anasuya Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

N.Awantika Devi Vs The State of Telangana and 4 other

N.Awantika Devi Vs The State of Telangana

B.N.Krishan Vs The Chief Executive Officer, Officer of the Cantonment Board

Mukka Industries, Jammikunta, Vs Food Corporation of India., Regional office, 3rd floor

M/s.Om Shiv Shakti Iron Industries Pvt.Ltd Vs The Company Law Board,Addl.Principle Bench at Chennai