2024 (8) TMI 1057 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Seeking protection under Section 218 of the Companies Act, 2013 - as interim relief it is prayed for re-appointment as Secretary of the Club - submission which was advanced before the NCLT by the Appellant was that the termination was in violation of Section 218(1)(b) of the Companies Act and no employee could be removed from the Club without prior approval of the Tribunal - HELD THAT - It is clear that only intent and object of the Appellant is to seek protection under Section 218 of the Companies Act and get reappointed as Secretary. The said issue of protection under Section 2018 having already been pronounced by the NCLT, which order has not been interfered with by this Tribunal or the Hon ble Supreme Court, subsequent applications CA-88/2023 and CA-34/2024 are nothing but re- agitation of the issues which has already been raised by the Appellant and rejected. Appellant has given much emphasis on non-decision of CA-88/2023 and CA-34/2024 inspite of order of this Tribunal passed on 10.08.2023 and 11.01.2024. As noticed above, on 10.08.2023, this Tribunal has observed that in view of the fact that application has been filed under Section 218 of the Companies Act, the Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of the application at an early date. Subsequently, another IA was filed being IA No.194 of 2024, which was disposed of by this Tribunal by order dated 11.01.2024. The Court who is in control of the proceedings has right to conduct the proceedings in orderly manner and resist attempt of the litigants who tend to raise repeatedly unconnected issues. In the present case it is noticed that the Appellant has been making submissions time and again with regard to CA-88/2023 and CA-34/2024 with regard to entitlement of protection under Section 218 of the Companies Act. Appellant very conveniently in entire appeal has not referred to earlier order of the NCLT dated 25.03.2021 where application under Section 218 was filed and in which no relief was granted of setting aside his termination or permitting his continuance. Thus, no grounds have been made to interfere with the order dated 05.04.2024 passed by the NCLT. Appeal is dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Tribunal's order dated 05.04.2024.
2. Application of Section 218 of the Companies Act, 2013.
3. Alleged concealment of relevant orders by the Appellant.
4. Procedural compliance with Rule 121 and Rule 150 of the NCLT Rules, 2016.
5. Conduct and allegations made by the Appellant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Tribunal's Order Dated 05.04.2024:
The appeal challenges the Tribunal's order dated 05.04.2024, which directed that CA-34/2024 and CA-88/2023 be listed on 03.10.2024. The Appellant argues that the Tribunal failed to decide CA-88/2023 despite directions from the NCLAT on 10.08.2023 and 11.01.2024 to dispose of the application at an early date. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had filed multiple applications, including CA-88/2023 and CA-34/2024, and that the Appellant had pursued CA-440/2022 rigorously, which was dismissed on 15.12.2023. The Tribunal observed that the Appellant's conduct and multiple filings had consumed significant court time, leading to the adjournment of CA-88/2023 and CA-34/2024 to 03.10.2024.

2. Application of Section 218 of the Companies Act, 2013:
The Appellant sought protection under Section 218 of the Companies Act, 2013, and reappointment as Secretary of the Club. The Tribunal had previously ruled on 25.03.2021 that the Appellant's termination was not covered by Section 218(1)(b) and that the Appellant could approach the Administrator for employment. This order was upheld by the NCLAT on 15.04.2021 and the Supreme Court on 03.12.2021. The Tribunal found that the Appellant's subsequent applications (CA-88/2023 and CA-34/2024) were a re-agitation of the same issues already decided.

3. Alleged Concealment of Relevant Orders by the Appellant:
The Respondent argued that the Appellant had concealed relevant orders, including the Tribunal's order dated 25.03.2021, the NCLAT's order dated 15.04.2021, and the Supreme Court's order dated 03.12.2021, which all pertained to the same subject matter as CA-88/2023 and CA-34/2024. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had not disclosed these orders in the appeal, leading to the conclusion that the Appellant was attempting to re-litigate issues already decided.

4. Procedural Compliance with Rule 121 and Rule 150 of the NCLT Rules, 2016:
The Appellant argued that the Tribunal violated Rule 121 and Rule 150 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. Rule 121 restricts legal practitioners or authorized representatives from appearing for a party whose interest is opposed to that of their former client without prior permission. The Tribunal found no foundation for this allegation. Rule 150 mandates that orders be pronounced within 30 days from the final hearing. The Tribunal acknowledged that the order was pronounced 45 days after the final hearing but held that this delay did not invalidate the order, as the requirement is directory, not mandatory.

5. Conduct and Allegations Made by the Appellant:
The Tribunal addressed the Appellant's conduct, noting that the Appellant had sent an email containing serious allegations against various parties and the Registry. The Tribunal observed that such emails were inappropriate and unacceptable, causing unwarranted stress on the Tribunal's functioning. The Tribunal also noted that the Appellant's counsel had advised the Appellant to tender an apology for the email, which had not been done. The Tribunal emphasized that litigants should not use the Tribunal for mudslinging and should focus on the adjudication of their cases.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the Appellant's applications were re-agitations of issues already decided, the Appellant had concealed relevant orders, and the procedural delay in pronouncing the order did not invalidate it. The Tribunal also criticized the Appellant's conduct and the inappropriate use of emails to make allegations.

← Previous Next →