1
ITEM NO.1501 Virtual Court 3 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 9340/2019
ARUNA OSWAL Appellant(s)
VERSUS
PANKAJ OSWAL & ORS. Respondent(s)
([ HEARD BY: HON. ARUN MISHRA AND HON. S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.] )
WITH
C.A. No. 9401/2019 (XVII)
C.A. No. 9399/2019 (XVII)
Date : 06-07-2020 These appeals were called on for pronouncement of
Judgment today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, AOR
Mr. Aman Jha, Adv.
Mr. R. C. Kohli, AOR
Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sidharth Sethi, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra pronounced the reportable
Judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon’ble Mr.
Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.
The operative portion of the Judgment is reproduced
hereunder :-
“29. We are of the opinion that the
proceedings before the NCLT filed
under sections 241 and 242 of the Act
should not be entertained because of
the pending civil dispute and
2
considering the minuscule extent of
holding of 0.03%, that too, acquired
after filing a civil suit in company
securities, of respondent no. 1. In
the facts and circumstances of the
instant case, in order to maintain the
proceedings, the respondent should
have waited for the decision of the
right, title and interest, in the
civil suit concerning shares in
question. The entitlement of
respondent No.1 is under a cloud of
pending civil dispute. We deem it
appropriate to direct the dropping of
the proceedings filed before the NCLT
regarding oppression and mismanagement
under sections 241 and 242 of the Act
with the liberty to file afresh, on
all the questions, in case of
necessity, if the suit is decreed in
favour of respondent No.1 and
shareholding of respondent No.1
increases to the extent of 10%
required under section 244. We
reiterate that we have left all the
questions to be decided in the pending
civil suit. Impugned orders passed by
the NCLT as well as NCLAT are set
aside, and the appeals are allowed to
the aforesaid extent. We request that
the civil suit be decided as
expeditiously as possible, subject to
cooperation by respondent No.1.
Parties to bear their costs as
incurred.”
3
Pending application(s) is/are disposed of.
(NARENDRA PRASAD) (JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (JAGDISH CHANDER)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
ITEM NO.1501 Virtual Court 3 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 9340/2019
ARUNA OSWAL Appellant(s)
VERSUS
PANKAJ OSWAL & ORS. Respondent(s)
([ HEARD BY: HON. ARUN MISHRA AND HON. S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.] )
WITH
C.A. No. 9401/2019 (XVII)
C.A. No. 9399/2019 (XVII)
Date : 06-07-2020 These appeals were called on for pronouncement of
Judgment today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, AOR
Mr. Aman Jha, Adv.
Mr. R. C. Kohli, AOR
Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sidharth Sethi, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra pronounced the reportable
Judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon’ble Mr.
Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.
The operative portion of the Judgment is reproduced
hereunder :-
“29. We are of the opinion that the
proceedings before the NCLT filed
under sections 241 and 242 of the Act
should not be entertained because of
the pending civil dispute and
2
considering the minuscule extent of
holding of 0.03%, that too, acquired
after filing a civil suit in company
securities, of respondent no. 1. In
the facts and circumstances of the
instant case, in order to maintain the
proceedings, the respondent should
have waited for the decision of the
right, title and interest, in the
civil suit concerning shares in
question. The entitlement of
respondent No.1 is under a cloud of
pending civil dispute. We deem it
appropriate to direct the dropping of
the proceedings filed before the NCLT
regarding oppression and mismanagement
under sections 241 and 242 of the Act
with the liberty to file afresh, on
all the questions, in case of
necessity, if the suit is decreed in
favour of respondent No.1 and
shareholding of respondent No.1
increases to the extent of 10%
required under section 244. We
reiterate that we have left all the
questions to be decided in the pending
civil suit. Impugned orders passed by
the NCLT as well as NCLAT are set
aside, and the appeals are allowed to
the aforesaid extent. We request that
the civil suit be decided as
expeditiously as possible, subject to
cooperation by respondent No.1.
Parties to bear their costs as
incurred.”
3
Pending application(s) is/are disposed of.
(NARENDRA PRASAD) (JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (JAGDISH CHANDER)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
