Q. Who were the advocates involved in the case Maxzimaa Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd vs Rachana Khatri & Anr?

For Appellant: - Mr. Abhay K. Das, Advocate.

Q. What are the equivalent citations for Maxzimaa Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd vs Rachana Khatri & Anr ?

The equivalence citation are LQ/NCLAT/2018/239 ;

Q. What was the bench assigned for the case Maxzimaa Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd vs Rachana Khatri & Anr?

S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, CHAIRPERSON , BANSI LAL BHAT, MEMBER JUDICIAL

Maxzimaa Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd Vs. Rachana Khatri & Anr On 19 March, 2018

Are you looking for a legal research tool ?

Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Maxzimaa Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd v. Rachana Khatri & Anr

(National Company Law Appellate Tribunal)

Company Appeal (AT) No. 79 Of 2018 | 19-03-2018

1. Rachana Khatri & Anr. (Respondents herein) filed application under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 alleging oppression against members of Appellant Company-Maxzimaa Pharmaceuticals Private Limited- (1st Respondent in the Company Petition). Their grievances were two fold. The first one being her illegal and unauthorised removal as a Director of the 1st Respondent Company (Appellant) and the second relating to siphoning of the business of the 1st Respondent Company.

2. The National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) by interim order on 13th January, 2017 directed the parties to maintain the Status Quo with respect to the shareholdings of the members of the 1st Respondent Company.

3. According to Petitioner, the other Respondents incorporated another company in the name of ‘Maxi Medicare’, which has similar name of 1st Respondent Company. Some of the Respondents are common Shareholders and Directors. At their instance the other Company is engaged in the business of manufacture and distribution of medicines under the same trade mark as those marketed by the 1st Respondent Company (Appellant) which according to Petitioners amounts to siphoning off the business of the 1st Respondent Company.

4. The Respondents including the Appellant prayed for further time to address the Tribunal and wished to file some documents. As the prayer was made at the belated stage of final arguments, the Tribunal allowed the prayer to file additional document subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Ministers Relief Fund, by order dated 25th January, 2018 which is under challenge in this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant (1st Respondent Company) submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the petition was pending for arguments on interim application but treated the petition fixed for final hearing. However, that cannot be a ground to assail the impugned order.

6. As the matter is pending since 2016 and in terms of Section 422 of the Companies Act, 2013, the Tribunal is required to dispose of the matter preferably within three months, if the Tribunal has fixed the date for final disposal, it cannot be held to be illegal.

7. No relief can be granted. The appeal is dismissed. No cost.

Advocate List

For Appellant: - Mr. Abhay K. Das, Advocate.

Bench

S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, CHAIRPERSON
BANSI LAL BHAT, MEMBER JUDICIAL

Eq Citations

LQ/NCLAT/2018/239

Head Note

Companies Act, 2013 — Ss. 422 and 241 & 242 — Interim order — Allowing filing of additional documents at the belated stage of final arguments — Permissibility — Tribunal allowing the prayer to file additional document subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Ministers Relief Fund — Validity — Held, as the matter is pending since 2016 and in terms of S. 422 of 2013 Act, the Tribunal is required to dispose of the matter preferably within three months, if the Tribunal has fixed the date for final disposal, it cannot be held to be illegal — No relief can be granted (Paras 5 and 6)