PRABHAT JHUNJHUNWALA Vs. UNICOM SKYTECH LTD AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Application (C.A.123/2016) filed by the Petitioner is mentioned when the court assembled. The Learned Representative of the Applicant/Petitioner has stated that the Application was filed on 26th October, 2016 seeking amendment in the main Petition. In support he has referred an earlier order of the then CLB, Mumbai Bench dated 14th March, 2014 wherein an observation was made as under :-

(2.) In the Application it is stated that the Applicant is the original Promoter Director holding single largest shares which constituted about 49.51% of the shares. It is alleged that the respondent No. 2 in connivance with respondent No. 3 had illegally taken over the control of the respondent No. 1 Company. It is also explained that earlier an application was moved (CA No. 131/2013) seeking permission to file an application for amending the Petition on account of the fact that pursuant to an Order of Hon'ble CLB certain additional documents were filed by the respondents. Because of the additional information furnished by the Respondents the Petitioner sought permission to amend the Petition, which was claimed to be granted by the CLB vide Order dated 14th March, 2014 . It has also been pleaded that the delay in seeking amendment was not deliberate because in the past years various events took place due to which the Petition could not be amended, however, for proper adjudication of the Petition the proposed amendment is required. In short the nature of amendment and consequential relief sought for are stated to be as under :-

(3.) On the other hand from the side of the Respondents Mr. Ajay Kumar, Practicing Company Secretary, for the Respondent No. 1 appeared and vehemently objected mainly on the ground that after the lapse of so many years the action of the petitioner is malafide and the alleged amendments are not necessary to decide the petition. He has argued that the Petitioner was never serious about the disposal of the Petition. The Petition which was originally filed in CLB, New Delhi on 21st September, 2006 was not seriously persuaded. He has mentioned that vide an Order of CLB, Mumbai Bench dated 30th of June, 2013 while disposing of CA No. 219 of 2013 in CP No. 5 of 2010 and CA No. 128 in CP No. 113 of 2009 in the case of M/s. Kaizer Flavest Private Limited the observation was that with sole purpose to stall the hearing applications are moved in malafide manner. Against that order of CLB an appeal was filed before the Hon'ble High Court, however, vide Order of 19th June, 2013 no interference was made and directed to decide the Petition finally. He has further informed that vide an Order of 23.09.2016 the NCLT had made an observation that the Petitioner was not attending the proceedings so last opportunity was granted to the Petitioner. Thereafter only in the month of October, 2016 the Petitioner is seeking amendment in the main Petition. He has placed on record an Order of Principal Bench, CLB in the case of Ashok Mittal v. Unworthy Resorts Limited,2008 86 CLA 185 (CLB)} for the legal proposition that the undue delay was malafide and against the natural justice.