9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 655 - AT - Companies LawPrinciples of Natural Justice - allegation that the Appellant was not served with advance copy of the said Application and without giving opportunity of hearing impugned order has been passed - Impleadment of appellant - attachment of appellant assets - Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the Appellant was the Executive Director of PNB, Head Office, New Delhi i.e. employee of other organization. Therefore, he cannot be impleaded as Respondent in the Company Petition NO. 277 of 2018. Which is against the Nirav Modi Group and Gitanjali Group of Companies. Appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal 2. Violation of Principle of Natural Justice 3. Impleading of the appellant as a respondent in the Company Petition 4. Comparison of the case with a similar case before the Honorable Supreme Court Analysis: 1. Delay in filing the appeal: The Appellant filed an appeal against the order dated 31.01.2019 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal. The Respondent argued that the appeal was time-barred, as it was filed after the statutory period of 90 days. However, the Appellant contended that the delay of 41 days was due to the examination of voluminous documents for the preparation of the appeal. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the facts, condoned the delay and allowed the application, noting that the issue of delay cannot be raised again at this stage. 2. Violation of Principle of Natural Justice: The Appellant contended that the impugned order was passed in violation of the Principle of Natural Justice as they were not served with an advance copy of the application and were not given an opportunity to be heard. It was argued that the Appellant was neither necessary nor a proper party for the adjudication of the Company Petition No. 277 of 2018. 3. Impleading of the appellant as a respondent in the Company Petition: The impugned order impleaded the Appellant as a respondent in the Company Petition along with 18 others. The Appellant, who was the Executive Director of PNB at the relevant time, was challenged being included as a respondent. The Honorable Supreme Court in a similar case held that a person heading another organization cannot be roped in, and their assets cannot be attached under Sections 337 & 339 of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned order based on the Supreme Court's judgment. 4. Comparison of the case with a similar case before the Honorable Supreme Court: The Appellant's case was compared to a case before the Honorable Supreme Court involving Ms. Usha Ananthasubramanian, where the Supreme Court allowed the appeal stating that individuals heading other organizations cannot be implicated and their assets attached under certain sections of the Act. As the Appellant was in a similar position as Ms. Usha Ananthasubramanian, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned order following the Supreme Court's judgment. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside with reference to the judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court.
|
