MARYS HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Being aggrieved by Ext.P13 order passed by the 2nd respondent, declining to issue license to the petitioner for running a FL-11 Hotel, this writ petition is filed. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) First petitioner is a Private Limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and is principally engaged in the business of owning and managing the Windsor Castle Hotel at Kottayam. The 2nd petitioner is allegedly the Managing Director of the 1st petitioner company. There are litigations pending before the National Company Law Tribunal at Chennai Bench. According to the petitioners, as per Exts.P2 and P3 judgments, the 2nd petitioner is vested with the power to manage the affairs of the petitioner company. Even though Special Leave Petitions were filed against Ext.P2 and P3 by the erstwhile Managing Director, viz., the additional 3rd respondent, they were dismissed as per Ext.P4. Accordingly, the Board of Directors meeting was held on 14.10.2016, and the 2nd petitioner was elected as the Managing Director, evident from Ext.P5. However, the same was challenged by the additional 3rd respondent before the National Company Law Tribunal and initially Ext.P6 interim order was passed on 04.11.2016. It is also stated that the 2nd petitioner's group comprising of the respondents in the Company Petition therefore, moved the National Company Law Tribunal and the Tribunal passed series of orders, evident from Ext.P7(a) to P7

(3.) It is stated that, by an order dated 13.02.2017, the Tribunal directed to hold an Extraordinary General Body Meeting (EOGM) of the 1 petitioner company under the independent Chairmanship of a former Judge of this Court, Justice M. Ramachandran. Accordingly, an EOGM was held on 25.02.2017 and various decisions were taken, evident from Ext.P8. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the 2nd petitioner is entitled to seek renewal of FL-11 license of the Hotel in question, since the license granted for the period 2016-17 was to expire on 31.03.2017 and in accordance with the EOGM constituted as per the orders of the Tribunal, authorizing the 2nd petitioner to apply for the license. Other contentions are raised with respect to the transfer of other licenses for running the hotel in favour of the 2nd petitioner. Anyhow, the application for renewal submitted by the 2nd petitioner was declined as per Ext.P13 order, holding that there is an interim order in CP No.9/2016 for an injunction restraining the 2nd petitioner from representing the 1st petitioner company as Managing Director, and it is not clear from the subsequent orders whether the above order is modified or not. Other circumstances are also pointed out to the effect that in order to transfer license from one person to another, it requires proper application, consent, affidavit and statements of transferor and transferee. However, the 2nd petitioner has not produced any documents so far and therefore, the application is not fit for consideration at this point of time. By stating so, the application is rejected.