9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the impugned order the Tribunal made observations and passed the following directions: "In view of the above, though it is held that the Applicant/R6 is entitled to file the application under Section 634A of the Companies Act, 1956, yet this application is premature. Therefore, the TCA No. 11 of 2016 is liable to be rejected. The same is dismissed, there is no order as to costs. However, the applicant/R6 is at liberty to file the Company Application at the time when the order of the CLB dated 25.2.2009 is all set for execution. Thus, the Chartered Accountant Shri R. Aghoramurthy is directed to submit his report before this Bench in the light of the directions given by the CLB in its order dated 25.02.2009, within two months from the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the period from 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2005 by scrutinising the books of account, vouchers and other connected records of the Company and on hearing submissions of all the connected parties. The Chartered Accountant will submit a report on the financial transactions of the Company for the relevant period, which shall include all the receipts, payments, expenses incurred on behalf of the company, together with the fund utilisation thereof and irregularities, if any, and serve copies of the report on all the parties, who are bound by the report of the chartered accountant. The whole process shall be completed by 30.04.2009. The Company will bear the Chartered Accountant's remuneration and towards this end, on initial amount of Rs. 50,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not executed, 1st Respondent who was 6th Respondent before the Company Law Board preferred an application under Section 634A of the Companies Act, 1956 before the erstwhile Company Law Board. The said petition under Section 634A remained pending and after constitution of the Tribunal, the petition was transferred and re-numbered as TCA No. 11/2016 for execution of the decree. Therein, the Tribunal passed the impugned order as quoted above. 5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the applicant, who was 6th Respondent before the Company Law Board and 1st Respondent herein is not the beneficiary of the judgement and decree passed by the Company Law Board on 25.2.2009. Therefore, he cannot file an application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is unable to execute its own order, the Company Law Board was liable to enforce the order through the Court where the registered office of the company is situated. 8. Now sub-section (3) of Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013 empowers the Tribunal to get its order executed. The provision does not confine itself only to the beneficiary of the order. If any of the party to the Company Petition whether petitioner or the respondent brings it to the notice of the Company Law Board (now Tribunal) that the order passed by it has not been enforced, it is always open to the Company Law Board (now Tribunal) to get the same executed in the same manner as if it were a decree made by a court in a suit, and it is lawful for the Company Law Board or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
