T.C.P. No. 82/(MAH)/2016 and I.A. No. 17/2016. Case: Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Tata Sons Limited and Ors.. Company Law Board

Case Number:T.C.P. No. 82/(MAH)/2016 and I.A. No. 17/2016
Party Name:Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Tata Sons Limited and Ors.
Counsel:For Appellant: Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Ravi Kadam and S.N. Mookherjee, Sr. Advs. and For Respondents: Nikhil Sakhardande, Prateek Seksaria, Shuva Mandal, Ruby Singh Ahuja, Dhruv Dewan, Nitesh Jain, Sayak Maity, Tahira Karanjawala, Avishkar Singhvi, Sameer Rohatgi, Sidharth Sharma, Rohan Batra, Arjun Sharma, Arjun Pall, Juhi Mathur, Jeet Karia, ...
Judges:B.S.V. Prakash Kumar, Member (J) and V. Nallasenapathy, Member (T)
Issue:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 151
Judgement Date:January 31, 2017
Court:Company Law Board


(Mumbai Bench)

CP No. 82/241, 242, 244/NCLT/MB/MAH/2016

  1. This matter has been posted to today for hearing on main Company Petition in the orders dated 22.12.2017 as well as over the subsequent issue raised in the Affidavits subsequently filed by the parties basing on the directions given in the orders dated 18.1.2017. Pleadings are complete as directed.

  2. Today when this Bench has asked the Petitioners Counsel to argue the main Company Petition along with the subsequent issue as mentioned in the order dated 18.1.2017, the Senior Counsel Shri Aryama Sundaram, appearing on the petitioners' behalf, has initially insisted upon this Bench to pass orders in respect to the EGM proposed to be held on 6.2.2017.

  3. Looking at the arguments of the petitioner counsel, this Bench has put it to the Counsel of the Petitioners that he had already argued over this interim relief on 16.1.2017 while arguing the Contempt Petition basing on the relief the petitioners sought in the same Contempt Petition, in view of it, this bench has made it clear to the petitioners counsel that this Bench would take a call over holding meeting on 6.2.2017 if the Petitioners side completes their submissions over the main Company Petition as directed in the Order dated 22.12.2016 and on the Affidavits as directed in the order dated 18.1.2017.

  4. To which, the Petitioner Counsel has stated that this Bench must decide the waiver plea sought by him in their Affidavit, before hearing main Company Petition. On hearing such submission from the Petitioner Counsel, this Bench again made it clear to the Counsel that this Bench has not prevented the Petitioner side to argue the main Company Petition because this Bench held in the Order dated 22.12.2016 that maintainability point raised by the Respondents would be taken up as 1st point while the Respondents side argues on main petition. Since it is not open to the Respondents' side Counsel to argue this maintainability point separately and before completion of the submissions of the Petitioner side, the parties being bound by the earlier orders, the Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties shall go in accordance with the orders already passed.

  5. But the Petitioner Counsel, despite this Bench directed the petitioners counsel to argue as directed, has submitted four judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court saying that maintainability point shall be decided before hearing the main Company Petition, therefore unless and until waiver relief sought by the Petitioner is not decided, the Petitioner side cannot argue the main Company Petition.

  6. The four judgements the petitioners counsel relied upon are Jagraj Singh vs. Birpal Kaur 2007 (2) SCC 564/27; Sri Athmanathaswami Devasthanam vs. K. Giopalaswami Ayyangar 1964 (3) SCR...

To continue reading