2017 (4) TMI 1439 - AT - Companies Law

Maintainability of petition - Oppression and Mismanagement - Appointment of Director of the appellant company - HELD THAT - Tribunal has held that the company petition in regard to 2nd respondent was not maintainable as affirmed by this Appellate Tribunal in Company Appeal, we hold that the Tribunal was not justified in directing the appellant company to reinstate the 2nd respondent as Director of the company. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of company petition by 2nd respondent.
2. Direction to reinstate 2nd respondent as Director of the company.
3. Applicability of earlier judgments on filing fresh petitions.

Issue 1: Maintainability of company petition by 2nd respondent
The Appellate Tribunal heard an appeal against the National Company Law Tribunal's order on the maintainability of a company petition. The Tribunal found the petition maintainable only with respect to the 1st respondent, ruling that the 2nd respondent lacked locus standi to file the petition individually. However, the Tribunal directed the appellant company to appoint the 2nd respondent as a Director. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the company petition was not maintainable by the 2nd respondent, leading to the decision to set aside the direction to reinstate the 2nd respondent as Director.

Issue 2: Direction to reinstate 2nd respondent as Director of the company
The Appellate Tribunal found that the direction to appoint the 2nd respondent as Director of the company was not justified, as the company petition in regard to the 2nd respondent was deemed not maintainable. The Tribunal set aside the direction for the appellant company to reinstate the 2nd respondent as Director, emphasizing that the earlier judgments affirmed the non-maintainability of the company petition by the 2nd respondent.

Issue 3: Applicability of earlier judgments on filing fresh petitions
The Appellate Tribunal clarified that the impugned judgments and orders would not hinder any aggrieved person from filing a fresh petition for a subsequent cause of action, if maintainable. The Tribunal emphasized that any fresh petition would be decided independently, uninfluenced by prior orders. The appeal was allowed with these observations, and no costs were awarded in the circumstances.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Appellate Tribunal regarding the maintainability of the company petition, the direction to reinstate the 2nd respondent as Director, and the implications of earlier judgments on filing fresh petitions.