2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 6627
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
CANALTA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
MIRA ALLOY STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
CP - 84/2022
For the Petitioner:M. Roshan Atiq
For the Respondent:Pranav V Shankar
IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL,
DIVISION BENCH – II, CHENNAI
CP (CA) 84/ (CHE)/ 2022
(Under Section 241, 242 and other applicable provisions of the Companies Act, 2013)
In the matter of Mira Alloy Steels Private Limited
CANALTA STEELS AND ALLOYS INDIA
PRIVATE LIMITED,
No.123, Sathy Road, Kurumbapalayam,
Coimbatore – 641 107
… Petitioners
-vs-
1. M/S MIRA ALLOY STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,
No.123, Sathy Road, Kurumbapalayam,
Coimbatore – 641 107
2. MR. S.P. ARUNKUMAR,
9/3, BRR Nagar, 2nd Cross, Sathy Main Road,
Gandhipuram, Coimbatore – 641 012.
3. MR. S.P. ARAVINTHAN
9/3, BRR Nagar, 2nd Cross, Sathy Main Road,
Gandhipuram, Coimbatore – 641 012
4. VINTEK CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,
SF No.97/ 1-B, Arasampalayam Kinathukadavu,
Coimbatore – 642 109
…Respondents
IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL,
DIVISION BENCH – II, CHENNAI
IA (CA) 31/ (CHE)/ 2024 In CP (CA) 84/ (CHE)/ 2022
(Under Section 242(4) and other applicable provisions of the Companies Act, 2013)
In the matter of Mira Alloy Steels Private Limited
1. MR. S.P. ARUNKUMAR,
9/3, BRR Nagar, 2nd Cross, Sathy Main Road,
Gandhipuram, Coimbatore – 641 012.
2. MR. S.P. ARAVINTHAN
9/3, BRR Nagar, 2nd Cross, Sathy Main Road,
Gandhipuram, Coimbatore – 641 012 … Applicant/ Respondent -vs-
1. M/S MIRA ALLOY STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED, No.123, Sathy Road, Kurumbapalayam, Coimbatore – 641 107
2. CANALTA STEELS AND ALLOYS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, No.123, Sathy Road, Kurumbapalayam, Coimbatore – 641 107
3. MR. DEROLD GARY' CLARK, No.123, Sathy Road, Kurumbapalayam, Coimbatore – 641 107
4. MR. MICHAEL DEROLD CLARK, No.123, Sathy Road, Kurumbapalayam, Coimbatore – 641 107 …Respondents/ Petitioners
5. MR. SURESH ARUMUGAM, C/o Canalta Steels and Alloys India Private Limited, No.123, Sathy Road, Kurumbapalayam, Coimbatore – 641 107
6. MR. GUNASEKARAN, C/o Canalta Steels and Alloys India Private Limited, No.123, Sathy Road, Kurumbapalayam, Coimbatore – 641 107 …Respondents IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, DIVISION BENCH – II, CHENNAI IA (CA) 125/ (CHE)/ 2025 In CP (CA) 84/ (CHE)/ 2022 (Under Section 242(4) and other applicable provisions of the Companies Act, 2013)
In the matter of Mira Alloy Steels Private Limited CANALTA STEELS AND ALLOYS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, No.123, Sathy Road, Kurumbapalayam, Coimbatore – 641 107 … Petitioners -vs-
1. M/S MIRA ALLOY STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED, No.123, Sathy Road, Kurumbapalayam, Coimbatore – 641 107
2. MR. S.P. ARUNKUMAR, 9/3, BRR Nagar, 2nd Cross, Sathy Main Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore – 641 012.
3. MR. S.P. ARAVINTHAN
9/3, BRR Nagar, 2nd Cross, Sathy Main Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore – 641 012
4. VINTEK CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, SF No.97/ 1-B, Arasampalayam Kinathukadavu, Coimbatore – 642 109 …Respondents Order pronounced on 19.11.2025 CORAM SHRI. JYOTI KUMAR TRIPATHI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
SHRI. RAVICHANDRAN RAMASAMY, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Present;
For Petitioners: P. H. Arvindh Pandian and Mohamed Wasif Khan, Advocates For Respondents: R. Vidhya Shankar and Pranav V Shankar, Advocates
ORDER
(Hearing through hybrid mode The main application has been filed under Section 241, 242 and other applicable provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, by Canalta Steels and Alloys India Private Limited, seeking reliefs against acts of oppression and mismanagement alleged to have been committed by the minority shareholders of Mira Alloy Mira India Private Limited, Mr. S. P. Arunkumar and Mr. S. P. Aravinthan, who are arrayed as Respondents 2 and 3. The 1st Respondent, Mira Alloy Steels Private Limited, is the company in respect of which the present petition has been preferred. The reliefs sought are as follows:
“V. Relief(s) sought.
A. Final Reliefs:
In view of the facts mentioned above, the Petitioner prays for the following relief(s):
(l)To declare that the acts of the Respondent No. 2 and 3 are oppressive and prejudicial to the interest of the Respondent Company and the Petitioner.
(2) To declare that the and 3rd Respondents are unfit to be a director of the 1st Respondent Company and remove the 2nd and 3rd Respondents as Directo