Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + AT Companies Law - 2018 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (11) TMI 1956 - AT - Companies Law


Issues:
- Rejection of application under Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013 for impleading a Director as a party respondent in a Company Petition.
- Allegations of illegal appointment, fraud, and corporate fraud against the Director.
- Dismissal of the appeal challenging the impugned order.

Analysis:

1. The Appellants filed an application under Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013 to implead a Director as a party respondent in a Company Petition alleging oppression and mismanagement. The National Company Law Tribunal rejected the application, leading to the appeal. The Appellants claimed the Director was illegally appointed, forged documents, and resigned hastily. They argued that the resignation did not absolve him of liabilities, calling it corporate fraud that should have been investigated. The impugned order was challenged on grounds of unsustainability.

2. The Tribunal reviewed the case and found the appeal lacking in merit. The Appellants primarily sought the Director's impleadment due to alleged illegal appointment and fabricated documents for statutory filings. The Tribunal noted the Director's resignation and the absence of harm caused to the Appellants or the Company. The Appellants failed to prove any prejudice during the Director's tenure. The Tribunal concluded that the Director's resignation and lack of demonstrated harm negated the need for impleadment, as he was no longer a member of the Board of Directors.

3. The Tribunal emphasized that the Appellants' other claimed reliefs were dependent on the Director's impleadment, which was not warranted given the circumstances. The Director's resignation, coupled with the absence of proven harm, rendered the impleadment unnecessary. The Tribunal found no legal infirmity in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, with no costs awarded. Overall, the appeal challenging the rejection of the application for impleading the Director as a party respondent was dismissed based on the lack of merit and the Director's resignation, which mitigated the need for his impleadment.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates