Live
- The integration of AI & ML tools in education
- New IIT-K study sheds light on air pollution sources, impact on health
- 100 Great IITians: Pioneers of India’s tech renaissance
- Pawan Kalyan’s ‘Vakeel Saab’ re-release lacks buzz
- Q4 topline growth weakest since Covid-19: Report
- HC directs TS CEO to ensure no distribution of liquor during polls
- Global uncertainty challenging for India’s exports: FIEO
- SAP sees India’s GDP at $30-trn by 2047
- Northeast betters the lot of women
- VHP disses forceful removal of saffron flags by police, civic staff
Don’t take decision affecting interests of Ankur Bhatia’s widow, her wards: NCLAT to subsidiary companies of AIPL
The National Company Law Tribunal has passed an interim directing subsidiary companies of Amadeus India Private Limited (AIPL) to not take any important decision affecting the interests of the widow of Late Ankur Bhatia and her wards and to run only the routine affairs.
New Delhi: The National Company Law Tribunal has passed an interim directing subsidiary companies of Amadeus India Private Limited (AIPL) to not take any important decision affecting the interests of the widow of Late Ankur Bhatia and her wards and to run only the routine affairs.
The order was passed by a bench presided over by judicial member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj in November 2023 on a plea filed by Smriti Bhatia and others -- who jointly hold 35.55 per cent shares in AIPL – alleging oppression as being minority shareholders and against the proposal to remove her from the directorship.
In its interim order, the bench also comprising technical member LN Gupta, said the EGM may take place but the decision for removal of the petitioner from the Directorship would be subject to the outcome of the petition.
“We are also not oblivious to the fact that the present petition involved the issue of examination of the provision of Rule 79 of NCLT Rules 2016, which provides for remedy qua the grievance qua Section 169 of the Companies Act, 2013. Nevertheless, all these issues need to be examined in depth,” said the bench further.
Before the company tribunal, respondents contended that the plea is not maintainable because the petitioners are not holding 10 per cent shares in subsidiary companies as required Sections 241(1) and 244(1)(a) of the Companies Act.
