9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Maintainability of the appeal filed on behalf of a wound-up company. 2. Claim of the Ex-Director being a 'person aggrieved' and the appeal's maintainability based on this claim. Issue 1 - Maintainability of the appeal filed on behalf of a wound-up company: The appeal in question was purportedly filed on behalf of a company that had been wound up by an order of the Delhi High Court. The Department pointed out this fact, which was not disputed by the appellant's counsel. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appeal filed on behalf of the wound-up company was not maintainable. The Tribunal emphasized that since the company no longer existed due to being wound up, it could not be a party to the appeal proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on this ground. Issue 2 - Claim of the Ex-Director being a 'person aggrieved' and the appeal's maintainability based on this claim: The appellant's counsel argued that the Ex-Director, who had signed the appeal on behalf of the liquidated company, should be considered a 'person aggrieved.' The counsel relied on a Supreme Court decision to support this argument. However, upon reviewing the impugned order, the Tribunal found that no penalty was imposed on the Ex-Director, nor was any amount sought to be realized from him. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the Ex-Director could not be deemed a 'person aggrieved.' Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted that the Ex-Director could not have filed the appeal on behalf of a company that was already wound up. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on these grounds. In summary, the Tribunal ruled that the appeal filed on behalf of a wound-up company was not maintainable due to the company's non-existence. Furthermore, the claim of the Ex-Director being a 'person aggrieved' and the appeal's maintainability based on this claim were rejected, as no penalties were imposed on the Ex-Director, and he could not represent a company that had already been wound up.
|
