2024 (1) TMI 95 - AT - Companies Law

Requirement of prior permission before filing of the joint application under Section 213, 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT - The impugned order is required to be affirmed. Moreover on bare examination of Section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013, it is found that there is no error in the impugned order. Accordingly the objection raised by the appellants appears to be misconceived and as such there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Appeals dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issues related to the necessity of prior permission under Rule 23A of NCLT Rules 2016 to file a joint petition under sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, and whether post facto permission can be granted.

Issue 1: Necessity of prior permission under Rule 23A of NCLT Rules 2016

The appellant raised objections regarding the requirement of prior permission before filing a joint application under Section 213, 241, and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013. The main petitions were challenged for not obtaining prior permission under Rule 23A of NCLT Rules 2016. The respondents argued that the main petitions were filed under sections 213, 241, and 242 of the Companies Act 2013, and the objection raised was technical in nature. The Tribunal considered whether prior permission of the Tribunal under Rule 23A of NCLT Rules 2016 is necessary to file a petition by more than one person under section 241 of the Companies Act 2013. The applicants holding significant share capitals argued that they had the right to file the application under section 241 and that the Tribunal should provide permission as per Rule 23A(2) of the NCLT Rules 2016. The respondents contended that post facto permission cannot be granted as it is not contemplated in law. The Tribunal concluded that the four petitioners had the same cause of action and filed a joint petition with common prayers, thus prior permission under Rule 23A was not necessary.

Issue 2: Granting of post facto permission

The question of whether post facto permission can be granted was considered in relation to the prior permission requirement under Rule 23A of NCLT Rules 2016. The Tribunal decided that since prior permission was not required, the question of granting post facto permission did not arise. Consequently, all the applications were dismissed without any order of cost. The judgment affirmed the impugned order, stating that there was no error in the order, and dismissed all the appeals.