Mohd. Sharief Tariq, Member - (1.) Under consideration is an issue that pertains to the appointment of interim administrator for running day to day affairs of M/s. PMP Lunghi Private Ltd. which is the subject matter in C.P. No. 12 of 2016 that has been filed before the CLB, which stood transferred to NCLT and renumbered as TCP No. 203 of 2016. The petitioners G. Palanisamy and G. Senthilkumar have filed the Company Petition against M/s. PMP Lunghi Private Ltd. and 8 Others, under Sections 237, 397, 398, 402, 406 r/w Schedule XI of the companies Act, 1956. M/s.PMP Lunghi Private Ltd. (for short 'R1 company') is a company incorporated on 24.08.2005, CIN : U18101 TN2005PTC 057271 issued under the Companies 1956, having registered office at No. 130, Coral Merchant Street, Mannady, Chennai-600001.
(2.) The petitioners have levelled allegations of oppression and mismanagement of the affairs of R1 company against the Respondents and sought different reliefs against them. The petitioners have also prayed for interim reliefs under para IX of the petition, inter alia, the appointment of Chartered Accountant for auditing the accounts of R1 company and appointment of interim administrator. During the course of hearing on 31.10.2016, this Bench identified two main issues relating to the disputes between the petitioners and respondents. The first issue is in relation to the appointment of Chartered Accountant for conducting audit of R1 company in order to determine the quantum of loss sustained by R1 company due to diversion of its funds and business that has been alleged by the petitioners against respondents. The second issue is pertaining to the appointment of interim administrator for running the day to day affairs and management of R1 company.
(3.) The first issue has been resolved with the consensus of both of the parties by appointing Chartered Accountant vide our order dated 05.01.2016 to conduct the audit of R1 company, along with its associate firms as has been agreed by the parties to the Company petition. In relation to the second issue that pertains to the appointment of interim administrator, the counsel for petitioners has filed written submissions stating therein that Kela and Company, the 7th Respondent (exclusively owned by the Respondents) had occupied the main factory premises of R1 company and are doing business by utilising the entire infrastructure belonging to that company. It has further been averred that the firm continues to occupy the main factory premises of R1 company and the petitioners who hold 50% stake in the company and are two Directors out of four Directors of the company have been completely shut out from the main factory premises. Based on this arguments, the petitioners have contended that it is necessary to appoint an administrator by this Bench for ensuring that the assets and infrastructure belonging to R1 company are not misused any longer and used only for the betterment of the company.;