- (1.) This is an application filed under section 424(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with order XXI rule 11 of CPC with a prayer for execution of the order dated 13.9.2013 (Annexure-A) passed by the erstwhile Company Law Board in C.P. No. 32(ND) of 2010.
(2.) An application being CA No. 15/C-1/2015 was filed by the respondent before the Company Law Board with a prayer to seek clarification of order dated 13.09.2013. The aforesaid application was dismissed vide order dated 04.12.2015(Annexure-B). Against that order an appeal was preferred being appeal No. CO.A(SB) 2/2016 before Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the same was also disposed of by order dated 25.01.2016 (annexure-C). It is further asserted that the respondents as per order dated 13.09.2013 are required to transfer 50% of the land measuring 227 acres i.e. 113.5 acres (approx.) of freehold land located in Tehsil Nun, District Mewat, Haryana to the petitioner and/or its nominees as per the details given in the application. A prayer has also been made for appointment of the Court Commissioner or any other officer at the cost of the respondents for transferring this land as detailed in column 7 of table of the application alongwith description and specification of the property as per the detail given in the petition.
(3.) In response to the application a detailed reply has been filed and a specific objection has been raised that the terms of the settlement dated 13.09.2013 cannot be implemented because it violates the provisions of Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer of issue of Securities by a person Resident outside India) Regulation 2000. It has further been alleged that policy concerning foreign investment has also been violated. In paras 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 allegations have been made that the petitioner company namely Rajan Cosmetics (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. is controlled by a group of companies known as 'R.P. Group' which is a foreign entity. Therefore within a meaning of section 3 & Regulation 14(1)(ia) the petitioner is under the control of the 'R.P. Group'. Accordingly it has been asserted that such a settlement between the parties is in violation of law applicable to such transaction and cannot be given effect to by directing execution of such settlement.;