MANORANJANA SINH Vs. POSITIV TELEVISION P. LTD. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C A. No. 88/C. No. 1 of 2013 is by the petitioner seeking impleadment of Mr. Navin Jindal, Jindal groups of companies and Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. (henceforth "JSPL") as respondents Nos. 23 and 24, M/s. Worship Impex P. Ltd. (henceforth "WIPL") respondent No. 25 and its two erstwhile promoter directors Mr. Santosh Singhal and Ms. Poonam Sharma as respondents Nos. 28 and 29, Mr. Shekhar Kumar Sharda and Mr. Amit Kumar Jha directors in WIPL and erstwhile employees of JSPL as respondents Nos. 26 and 27 and lastly the statutory auditor M/s. R. Arora and Associates as respondent No. 30 in Company Petition No. 46/ND of 2009 concerning the affairs of Positiv Television P. Ltd. WIPL was incorporated on February 25, 2008 and its promoter directors and initial subscribers were Mr. Santosh Singhal and Ms. Poonam Sharma. The authorised, issued and paid -up share capital of WIPL on incorporation was Rs. 1,00,000 divided into 10,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each, held by Mr. Santosh Singhal and Ms. Poonam Sharma equally, i.e., 5,000 shares each. WIPL had no substantial business activity in furtherance of its objects as enshrined in its memorandum of articles (henceforth MOA) and recorded a miniscule profit after tax of Rs. 4,581 for the year ending March 31, 2008, Rs. 19,557 for the year ending March 31, 2009, and Rs. 9,058 only for the year ending March 31, 2010.

(2.) IT needs mention here that an earlier application C.A. No. 153 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for impleadment of Mr. Navin Jindal as respondent No. 23 was dismissed in limine without issuance of notice to the respondent since the petitioner had, at that time, failed to place any material to even prima facie show that Mr. Navin Jindal had, in breach of the order dated May 25, 2009, passed by this Board, taken steps for buying a majority stake in respondents Nos. 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 through his family/associates or group companies and since no material was placed to even prime facie enable this Board to come to a conclusion that Mr. Navin Jindal and Mr. Matang Sinh have entered into an arrangement/agreement/understanding for mortgaging/leasing assets of respondent No. 1 Positiv Television P. Ltd. (henceforth PTPL) and its group companies by creating indirect rights with regard to the asset of respondents Nos. 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 in favour of Mr. Navin Jindal/his companies/associates.

(3.) IT is also not in dispute that the said order dated September 20, 2011, was carried in appeal by the respondents before the High Court of Delhi in Co. A. (SB) No. 57 of 2011 and Company Application No. 2068 of 2011. On October 19, 2011, Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel for the appellants made a statement before the High Court. The statement made by the appellant, concession granted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the order passed by the High Court of Delhi is reproduced below: