9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1045X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de averments against Respondent No.7 on its own risk and consequences. Merely because Respondent comes and makes statement that I have nothing to do, is not enough to immediately delete the concerned Respondent from the array of parties. Appeal allowed - name of Respondent No.7 is restored to the array of parties in the Company Petition. - Company Appeal (AT) No.313 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 31-10-2018 - A.I.S. Cheema Member (Judicial) And Balvinder Singh Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri Samar Bansal, Shri Anshu Bhanot, Shri Anuj Mirdha, Mr. Tushar Gupta, Shri Manan Shishodia and Ms. Devahuti Pathak, Advocates For the Respondents : Shri Malak Bhatt, Advocate (Respondent Nos.1 to 6 8) Shri Arun Kathpalia, Senior Advocate with Shri Pranaya Goyal, Shri Aman Raj Gandhi and Shri Yash Badkur, Advocates (Respondent No.7) ORAL JUDGEMENT A.I.S. CHEEMA, J. : This Appeal has been filed by original Petitioner against deleting of Respondent No.7 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP from the array of Respondents in the Company Petition. 2. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that as Interim Order dated 12.06.2018 Annexure - 2 of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner s advocate of the wrongful impleadment and requested the Petitioner to drop Respondent No.7 from the captioned Company Petition, Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit 1 is a copy of the said email dated 21st June 2018 addressed by Respondent No.7 s advocates to the Petitioner s advocate. 5. The Petitioner, however, has not even replied to the aforesaid email by Respondent No.7 s advocates. 6. In view of the above, I submit that the instant Company Petition ought to be dismissed as against Respondent No.7 in limine, and the Petitioner ought to be directed to compensate Respondent No.7 for needlessly having to bear legal costs. 3. The learned Counsel of Appellant submits that after such Affidavit-in-Reply dated 11.07.2018 was filed and the matter came up on 31.07.2018 before the NCLT for some reason, the Counsel for the Appellant could not reach in time when the matter was called and the NCLT immediately proceeded to pass the Impugned Order. The Impugned Order dated 31.07.2018 reads as under:- ORDER 1. The Legal Representative of the Respondent is present. 2. When the case was called none from the side of the Petitioner is present. 3. The Responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel, the Petitioner had corresponded with Respondent No.7 through its employees and there were number of e-mails showing as to how the Petitioner was systematically kept away from the affairs of the Company. The Counsel submitted that involvement of Respondent No.7 in the affairs was pleaded in detail in the Company Petition. 4. Counsel made reference to the pleadings of the Petitioner in the Company Petition and has read out the pleadings to us. The copy of the Company Petition is available with the Reply of the Respondent No.7 (Diary No.7713). The learned Counsel referred to para 3.7.2, paragraphs 18, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33 and 36 to show that the original Petitioner had made various averments against Respondent No.7 including averment of collusion between Respondent No.7, Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.4. Para 33 of the Company Petition reads as under:- 33. It is fairly obvious from the conduct displayed by the Executive Directors, Respondent No.7 Company and Respondent No.2 Company s representative and Respondent No.4, that all of them were colluding together to intentionally exclude Petitioner from participating in the affairs of the Respondent No.1 Company or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Respondent No.7 was otherwise not relevant. 7. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.7 submitted that the e-mails being relied on by the Appellant are all relating to Mr. Satish of Deloitte Haskins Sells LLP which is a different entity and has nothing to do with the Respondent No.7. The learned Counsel referred to the copies of e-mails filed in this regard. Counsel pointed out Page 499 and Page 564 of the Appeal filed with the Reply of Respondent No.7 which e-mail shows correspondence from Satish on behalf of Deloitte Haskins Sells LLP. (e-mail address - [email protected] ). According to the counsel, this Satish is not employee of Respondent No.7. Respondent No.7 is named Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP. Reference is made to Page 562 as an instance to show that Kishore is employee of Respondent No.7 and when he sent correspondence (e-mail [email protected] ), it was on behalf of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India Private Limited. The Counsel submitted that Page 562 of the copy of e-mail filed with the Reply makes it clear that when Kishore entered into correspondence by e-mail, the subject was service tax registration. The learned Counsel submitted that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t cannot be applied here where the facts are totally different and the present matter be appreciated on its own facts. 10. We have gone through the material which has been brought before us. The various paragraphs referred to from the Company Petition contain various averments against Respondent No.7 and we have also noted the response given by the Company to the pleadings with regard to Respondent No.7. The Respondent No.7 is trying to distinguish between itself and Deloitte Haskins Sells LLP. We are keeping in view observations of Hon ble Supreme Court in the Judgement referred. We note the e-mail addresses which are from same domain name @DELOITTE.com . The domain name appears to have been taken from Data Naming Server Authority by person/persons having commonality of interest. What appears is that different employees are putting their names using same domain name to do correspondence. This is not a matter where at present stage itself of the Petition, the Reply of Respondent No.7 should have been hurriedly accepted that Respondent No.7 had nothing to do with regard to services provided to Respondent No.1 Company. We find that at the stage of pleadings, it was material to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
