Rajeswara Rao Vittanala, M(J)): Heard Sh. G. Jagadish, Learned Counsel for the Applicants/Respondents No. 1 & 4 and Sh. Malleswaram Durga Prasad, Learned Counsel for the Respondents/Petitioners. The Learned counsel for the Applicants/Respondents No. 1 & 4 has filed two Company Applications bearing numbers 45 and 46 of 2016 in the C.P. No. 1 of 2016.

2.C.A. No. 45 of 2016 is filed under Section 22 of the SICA Act read with Section 273 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 32 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 seeking this Tribunal to stay all further proceedings in C.P. No. 1 of 2016 as the same is barred under Section 22 of the SICA Act.

C.A. No. 46 of 2016 is filed under Section 22 of the SICA Act, Order-7 and Rule-11 of C.P.C. read with Section 273 of the Companies Act read with Rule-32 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules 2016, seeking the Tribunal to reject the C.P. No. 1 of 2016 as the same is barred by Section 22 of the SICA Act.

3.During the course of arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Applicants/Respondents No. 1 & 4, does not want to press both the Company Applications. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents/Petitioners has no objection for the same. However, the Learned Counsel for the Applicants/Respondents No. 1&4 requested time to file reply to the main Company Petition.

4.In view of the above facts and circumstances, both the C.A. No. 45 of 2016 and C.A. No. 46 of 2016 are dismissed as not pressed. No order as to the costs.