9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellants have been impleaded as party Respondents? HELD THAT:- In similar case of UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS VERSUS GITANJALI GEMS LTD. AND ORS., SURESH KUMAR BHUTANI, PARESH PRAVIBHAI RATHOD, HARESH V. RAJLAL SHAH, KETAN CHANDRAKANT SOLANKI, MANISH LALIT DANI, SANKET BIPIN SHAH, HIMANSHU PRAVINCHANDRA TRIVEDI, JYOTI B VORA, SUDHIR AMBALAL MEHTA AND CHANDRAKANT KANU KARKARE [ 2018 (9) TMI 678 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI] while discussing wide powers of the Tribunal under Sections 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013, conjointly read with Section 246 and Sections 337 to 341, this Appellate Tribunal held that During the process of investigation and pendency of an application under Section 241(2) read with Section 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 and in view of powers conferred under Section 221, the Tribunal is not only empowered to pass appropriate interim order against the Company but also against any person or individual, including the order to desist. The Tribunal is empowered to pass order under Section 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 in a petition under Section 241(2) if it forms opinion that the affairs of the company have been con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 258 of 2019 was filed by 'Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP' and its partners challenging the maintainability of the Company Petition. By impugned order dated 9th August, 2019, the Tribunal rejected the Miscellaneous Application. 4. In another Company Petition No. 02 of 2014, the Union of India sought to debar the then present Directors (Appellants herein) from managing the affairs of the Company (M/s. Megacity Bangalore Developers and Builders Limited') and further to permit to nominate five Directors to manage the affairs of the Company while several Civil and Criminal cases were pending against the Company and its Directors. In the said Petition, the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 14th March, 2019 disposed of the said Company Petition by removing and debarring the Directors from managing the affairs of the Company and allowing the prayer of Union of India to appoint Directors. 5. In these appeals as similar question of law is involved, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 6. For the said reasons, we have noticed only the main ground taken and the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel in "Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP v. Union of India─ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Appellant has been wrongly impleaded as a party Respondent in Company Petition No. 3638 of 2018 as the Appellant during the F.Y. 2017-2018 was not related to 'IL&FS' or its management and affairs and was only a Partner of 'Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP', therefore, neither a necessary nor a proper party for adjudication of the said Company Petition. Further, it was submitted that no final reliefs were claimed in the Company Petition against the Appellant and, therefore, there was no question of any interim protective orders being granted against the Appellant. Company Appeal (AT) No. 195 of 2019 14. The 1st Appellant- 'Mr. Shrenik Baid' is a partner and the remaining Appellants in this appeal are employees of 'Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP' which was acting as an Auditor of 'IL&FS Financial Services Limited'., a 100% subsidiary of 'Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services' ('IL&FS'), until F.Y. 2017-2018 and also acted as a Joint Auditor of 'IL&FS Financial Services Limited' with 'BSR & Associates LLP'. 15. It was submitted that by impugned order dated 18th July, 2019 in Miscellaneous Application No. 2071 of 2019, the Appellants have been wrongly impleaded as a party Resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order dated 18th July, 2019 in Miscellaneous Application No. 2071 of 2019, the Appellant has been wrongly impleaded as a party Respondent in Company Petition No. 3638 of 2018 as it was neither a member of 'IL&FS' or 'IFIN', nor in any manner involved in the carrying on of business of 'IL&FS' or 'IFIN' and, therefore, neither a necessary nor a proper party for adjudication of the said Company Petition. It was further submitted that the Appellant was never in-charge of nor responsible for the management and operations of 'IFIN' and had issued only one Joint Audit Report for F.Y. 2017-18, along with 'Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP', who had been Auditors of 'IFIN' for 10 years. Furthermore, it was submitted that there was no material against the Appellant for any fraudulent activity. Company Appeal (AT) No. 205 of 2019 20. The Appellant- 'Mr. Milind Patel' was an Employee Director of 'IL&FS Financial Services Limited' ('IFIN') till 31st March, 2018, though he tendered his resignation on 5th February, 2018. 21. It was submitted that by impugned order dated 18th July, 2019 in Miscellaneous Application No. 2071 of 2019, the Appellant has been wrongly impleaded as a party Respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 of 2019, the Appellant has been wrongly impleaded as a party Respondent in Company Petition No. 3638 of 2018 as no final reliefs were claimed in the Company Petition against the Appellant nor any allegations were made and, therefore, it was neither a necessary nor a proper party for adjudication of the said Company Petition. 26. It was further submitted that the Appellant could have been joined as a party Respondent only after guilt of the Appellant had been proved beyond doubt on the basis of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office Second Interim Report and the Criminal Complaint filed before Special Court. Company Appeal (AT) No. 211 of 2019 27. The Appellant - 'Manu Kochhar' was an employee of 'IL&FS' from 23rd April, 1990 and retired on 31st August, 2018. The Appellant was appointed as Nominee Director of 'IL&FS Financial Services Limited' ('IFIN') in the year 2004 and resigned in March, 2015. 28. It was submitted that by impugned order dated 18th July, 2019 in Miscellaneous Application No. 2071 of 2019, the Appellant has been wrongly impleaded as a party Respondent in Company Petition No. 3638 of 2018 as no final reliefs were claimed in the Company Petition against the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cutive powers. 35. It was submitted that by impugned order dated 18th July, 2019 in Miscellaneous Application No. 2071 of 2019, the Appellant has been wrongly impleaded as a party Respondent in Company Petition No. 3638 of 2018 as the Appellant during the F.Y. 2017-2018 was not related to 'IL&FS' or its management and affairs, therefore, not a proper party for adjudication of the Company Petition filed for alleged oppression and mismanagement of 'IL&FS'. Further, it was submitted that no final reliefs were claimed in the Company Petition against the Appellant and, therefore, there was no question of any interim protective orders being granted against the Appellant. Company Appeal (AT) No. 215 of 2019 36. The Appellant- 'Mr. Uday Ved' served as an Independent Director of 'IFIN' between 31st March, 2015 and 20th September, 2018. 37. It was submitted that by impugned order dated 18th July, 2019 in Miscellaneous Application No. 2071 of 2019, the Appellant has been wrongly impleaded as a party Respondent in Company Petition No. 3638 of 2018 as the Appellant was an Independent Director of 'IFIN' and was not at all concerned with the management and day-to-day affairs of 'IL&FS'. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry of 'Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services' ('IL&FS'), until F.Y. 2017-2018 and also acted as a Joint Auditor of 'IL&FS Financial Services Limited' with 'BSR & Associates LLP'. 45. It was submitted that by impugned order dated 9th August, 2019, the Tribunal had failed to appreciate that the Appellant being an erstwhile auditor and ceasing to act as an Auditor of IFIN from F.Y. 2017-18 could not be covered within the ambit of Section 140 (5) of the Companies Act, 2013. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the functioning of the auditor at the time when the petition under Section 140(5) is initiated being a jurisdictional fact in the absence of powers under the said Section cannot be resorted to at all. 46. It was submitted that Section 140(5) only applies to existing auditors and the Tribunal could not have by way of a deeming fiction interpreted the said Section to include erstwhile Auditors. Also, such a construction would be violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India. Company Appeal (AT) No. 224 of 2019 47. According to Appellant, 'Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP', it was an Auditor of 'IL&FS Financial Services Limited' unti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h, 2017. It was submitted that 'SIHL' and its subsidiaries always had individual Directors, Shareholders, Board Members and Independent Auditors and he had no legal capacity in any of the companies that obtained loans from 'IL&FS' subsequent to his leaving from India and SIHL Group. 54. It was submitted that by impugned order dated 18th July, 2019 in Miscellaneous Application No. 2071 of 2019, the Appellant has been wrongly impleaded as a party Respondent in Company Petition No. 3638 of 2018 as vague allegations were alleged on him by 2nd SFIO Report. Company Appeal (AT) No. 285 of 2019 55. The Appellant- 'Mrs. Renu Challu' was appointed as an Independent Director of 'IFIN' on 27th September, 2017 and resigned on 17th July, 2018. 56. It was submitted that by impugned order dated 18th July, 2019 in Miscellaneous Application No. 2071 of 2019, the Appellant has been wrongly impleaded as a party Respondent in Company Petition No. 3638 of 2018 as the Appellant was an Independent Director of 'IFIN' and was not at all concerned with the management and day-to-day affairs of 'IL&FS'. Therefore, Appellant was neither a necessary nor a proper party for adjudication of the Company Petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant. It is submitted that it is only on the touchstone of reliefs sought that it can be determined whether a person is a necessary or proper party to a proceeding. Jurisdiction under Sections 241-242 vis-à-vis past auditors 60. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass orders against an auditor under Section 241 or Section 242 of the Companies Act, 2013. The provision contained in Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 pertain to oppression and mismanagement of the affairs of the company. An auditor is not involved in the management of the affairs of a company and, therefore, cannot be covered within the ambit of Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013. A reference to Section 242 (a) to (l) of the Companies Act, 2013 will demonstrate that none of the actions contemplated therein can be ordered against past statutory auditors of a company. Insofar as the general powers under Section 242(m) of the Companies Act, 2013 are concerned, it is submitted that the same must be read ejusdem generis with the remainder of Section 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 and not de hors the same. 61. The power of the Central Government under Section 241(2) of the Compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt. Section 339 of the Act: 64. It has been contended that the provisions of Section 339 of the Companies Act, 2013 are applicable in the facts of the present case in view of Section 246 of the Companies Act, 2013 and thus the Appellant is a necessary and/or a proper party. The said contention is baseless in view of the following: a. Section 339 of the Companies Act, 2013 cannot apply to auditors at all and applies only to a director, manager or officer of the company or persons who are knowingly party to the carrying on of business of the company. It is submitted that an auditor, by definition, is not party to the carrying on of the business of a company. Nor is it anybody's case that the auditor was carrying on the business of the company; b. In any event, there is no pleading in the said Company Petition or the said Miscellaneous Application No.2071 of 2019 that there have been any unlawful gains by the Appellant that would attract the provisions of Section 339 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Section 246 of the Companies Act, 2013; and c. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, even the 2nd Interim Report of the SFIO, which is the entire basis for the impleadment applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he very fact that Section 245 specifically makes reference to auditors makes it all the more evident that auditors are excluded from the ambit of proceedings under Sections 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013, which make no reference to auditors or any relief being sought against them. Special and specific remedies available against auditors: 68. The role of an auditor, whether it be in the nature of negligence or misconduct or fraud, can be investigated by, as Regulator, the National Financial Reporting Authority established under Section 132 of the Companies Act, 2013 or by the Institute of Chartered Accountants established under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 or under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 by a Special Court established under Section 435 of the Companies Act, 2013. In view of the specific and special alternate remedies available against auditors, there is no question of invoking the jurisdiction under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 to seek any remedy or relief against the Appellant. 69. Almost similar plea has been taken by other Appellants including the partners of 'Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP', Employees, Directors of 'IL&FS', the pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rent, granted an order protecting the whole IL&FS Group against any potential coercive action by creditors and other parties, in larger public interest on 15th October, 2018. 70.6. On 31st November, 2018, in pursuance to the Office Order, the SFIO submitted its first report in respect of the involvement of the Committee of Directors of IL&FS and an Employee Welfare Trust associated with IL&FS. 70.7. On the basis of the 1st SFIO Report and a prima-facie opinion of the Institute of Chartered Accountants dated 4th December, 2018 (which categorically holds the auditors of IL&FS, IL&FS Financial Services Limited ("IFIN") and 'IL&FS Transportation Networks India Limited' ("ITNL") guilty of professional misconduct), the Ministry of Corporate Affairs filed an application under Section 130 of the Companies Act, 2013 before the Tribunal, Mumbai praying, inter-alia, that the books of accounts of IL&FS, IFIN and ITNL for the past five years be reopened and recast. 70.8 By an order dated 1st January, 2019, the Tribunal, Mumbai directed that the accounts of IL&FS, IFIN and ITNL for the past 5 years, be re-opened and recast, observing that the affairs of these companies had indeed been mismana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p No. 326 - Para 64, Annexure 1, Vol 1, CA 190 of 2014 @ Pg 74 * Statutory auditors connived with the management of the company. * Concealed material information/facts by not reporting on fraudulently falsified books and financial statements from FY 2011- 12 to 2017-18 * Did not report the true state of affairs of the company, particularly negative NOF and negative CRAR, which led to loss to creditors of company who invested in NCDs. * Auditors along with their engagement team did not perform their duties diligently. * Despite having knowledge of impact of funding of default borrowers for principal and interest payments, auditors did not report in the Auditors Report from FY 2013-14 to 2017-18. (non-compliance of section 143(1)(a)) * Attempt to postpone the provisioning, recognitions of NPA by transferring the loans by mere book entry which resulted in showing old loans as closed and non-provisioning of new loans. 2. Kalpesh J Mehta - CA No. 193 of 2019 - Engagement Partner on Behalf of Delloite - Proposed Addl. Resp No. 324 - Para 62, Annexure 1, Vol 1, CA 190 of 2014 @ Pg 73 3. Udayan Sen - CA No. 194 of 2019 - Partner in Delloite - Proposed Addl. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Proposed Addl. Resp No. 336 - Para 74, Annexure 1, Vol 1, CA 190 of 2014 @ Pg 78 * Although appointed with the objective to help the company in improving corporate credibility and governance standards. * Ignored all alarming indicators. * Failed to save the interest of company and its stakeholders. * Aware about the stressed asset portfolio, the modus operandi used for granting loans to group companies of existing defaulting borrowers, preventing the account from being classified as NPA. * Connived with the management and continued lending from IFIN to group entities by causing wrongful loss to IFIN & its stakeholders. * Overlooked numerous impairment indicators in contravention of accounting standards and principles of prudence. 12. Manu Kochhar - CA No. 211 of 2019 - CEO-Special Initiatives - Proposed Addl. Resp No. 326 - Para 71, Annexure 1, Vol 1, CA 190 of 2014 @ Pg 76 13. Deepak Pareek - CA No. 212 of 2019 - Chief Financial Officer (CFO) - Proposed Addl. Resp No. 330 - Para 68, Annexure 1, Vol 1, CA 190 of 2014 @ Pg 75 14. Uday Ved - CA No. 215 of 2019 - Independent Director - Proposed Addl. Resp No. 335 - Para 73, Annexure 1, Vol 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directors have also failed to fulfil their statutory duties and report acts of fraud and suspected fraud, as statutorily obliged to. 76. Before deciding the issue, it is relevant to notice certain pleadings made by the Central Government in its application filed under Sections 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013 before the Tribunal as under: 76.1. 'Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Limited' ('IL&FS'), is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Over the years the IL&FS has inducted institutional shareholders to include Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), ORIX Corporation- Japan (ORIX), State Bank of India and Abu Dhabi Investment Authority. Besides the above, the 'IL&FS Employees Welfare Trust' also holds significant shares in 1st Respondent. The shareholding pattern of the IL&FS, as on 31st March, 2018, as derived from the Annual Report of the IL&FS, for the year 2018, is as follows: S.NO. NAME OF SHAREHOLDER PERCENTAGE HOLDING 1 Life Insurance Corporation of India 25.34% 2 ORIX Corporation -Japan. 23.54% 3 IL&FS Employees Welfare Trust 12% 4 Abu Dhabi Investment Authority 12.56% 5 Housing Development Finance Corporation Limite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsidiary of IL&FS with 50.42% equity share capital all of which is pledged is running Infrastructure Flyover project connecting Delhi with Uttar Pradesh. f) IL&FS Engineering and Construction Co. Limited It is an Associate Company of IL&FS with over 42% equity. It is into multinational infrastructural development construction business. In addition to the aforementioned major group companies, the IL&FS is engaged in maritime sector to develop maritime and logistic assets besides urban development sector for developing new cities, affordable housing, etc. The consolidated list of 169 group companies as derived from the Annual Report of the IL&FS for the year 2018, has been annexed herewith as Annexure P-4. 76.3. That further it has come to light through various reports and filing by the 'IL&FS' itself that the group companies of the 'IL&FS' have started defaulting on their debt obligations, which defaults are likely to grow and become severe in the coming months. It has been admitted by the IL&FS in its company application no. 1044 of 2018: (i) ITNL has been, in default on its debt obligations since June 30, 2018. (ii) The IL&FS itself has been in default on its debt obli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in its direct listed company ITNL, out of which 98.23% is pledged. Similarly, IL&FS holds 50.42% equity share capital in another of its major subsidiary 'IL&FS Investment Managers Limited', all of which is pledged. Furthermore, the IL&FS also holds 42.25% equity share capital in one of its associate company namely 'IL&FS Engineering and Construction Company Limited' and 34.05% of that equity holding is also pledged which indicate that company has basically withdrawn from the financial management of its key subsidiaries as it has no financial left. Furthermore, IL&FS Investment Managers Ltd., a subsidiary of IL&FS is holding company of 'Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd. (a Listed Company) wherein it holds 50.42% equity share capital of which all equity is pledged. 76.7. That the Central Government submits that the act of fraud perpetuated is on account of mis-representation and falsehoods about the financial state of affairs of the concerned company, which has jeopardized the financial health apart from causing serious damage and financial loss to various stakeholders. 76.8. That in light of the above, it is stated that the IL&FS and Ors., being either members of the Board of Direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs in particular and public at large in general to assure its continuation. 76.10. That, last but not the least, Department of Economic Affairs which is responsible for the financial stability in economy too has raised Red Signals of the likely collapse of IL&FS and has expressed its deep concern of such a collapse would have on the economy in its Confidential Note dated 30.09.2018. It has also highlighted various acts of mismanagement from economic perspective which if become reality would have cascading impact on various sectors of economy. 76.11. According to Department of Economic Affairs, the following are the repercussions the economy would face: i. Redemption pressure to continue: Now hereafter other AMCs having exposure of ₹ 2800 crores to IL&FS bonds would get redemption pressure from Corporate Clients who have invested in this ₹ 16 trillion Debt MF industry. ii. Debt market sell-off expected: It's impossible for such mutual fund schemes to get the redemption amounts in a short period of time. Further, illiquid Corporate Debt Market and DHFL saga may force AMCs to sell Government Securities. Hence, Government Securities will face a huge selling pressure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ector would be quite substantial as evidenced from a partial default of some companies and its repercussions in the financial market in the month of September, 2018. The future impact of more defaults in the Group may be catastrophic for the financial stability. In addition to above, from economic perspective, various acts of mis-governance and mis-management in IL&FS and its group companies are as under: i. The IL&FS Group has shown a loss of ₹ 2670 core for the year 2017-18 in the consolidated balance sheet. The leverage is about 13 times as the borrowing of about ₹ 91000 crores is on the base of equity capital and reserves of about ₹ 6950 cores. The CRAR (Capital to Risk Weighted Asset Ratio) of 15% for Systemically Important Non-Deposit Accepting Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC-ND-SI) would result in a leverage ratio of about 6-7 times and the CRAR of 30% (for core Investment Company) would result in a leverage of about 3-4 times. The indebtedness of the IL&FS at the end of Financial year 2017-18 is about 16468 crores and with debt market drying up for this company, it would be quite difficult to raise the fresh debt to service the existing debt or to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to long-term. So, there is a clear mismatch in its assets and liabilities. It is, therefore, imperative that the risk management framework of the company is robust. That is why RBI has issued the Non-Banking Financial Companies-Corporate Governance (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2015 for NBFCs. Although the Corporate Governance Principles are not strictly applicable to Core Investment Companies, however, Systemically Important Core Investment Companies are encouraged to follow these as a prudent measure. The said Directions provide for Risk Management Committee and reporting of its, role and functions, periodicity of the meetings and compliance with coverage and review functions, etc. The Risk Management Committee of IL&FS did not meet during the period 2015 to 2018 except once in July 2015. The responsibilities of the Risk Management Committee, inter-alia, include: a. Review of the adequacy of the risk management framework and operational procedures developed for new businesses and products from time to time; b. provision of guidance on. strengthening of risk management practices to respond to emerging global and national market and regulatory developments; c. approval of overa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 242 in terms of which 'it may make such order as it thinks fit', with a view to bringing to an end the matters complained of. xxx xxx xxx 45. From the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that on an application made by the Central Government alleging affairs of the Company are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest, the Tribunal can pass any order in terms of Chapter XVI, which includes Section 242 and other provisions under the said Chapter. 46. Section 246 is part of Chapter XVI, the provisions mentioned therein will be also covered by sub-section (2) of Section 241. Therefore, in an application made by the Central Government alleging conduct of the Company in a manner prejudicial to public interest, the provisions of Sections 337 to 341 will be also applicable mutatis mutandis to an application made to the Tribunal under Section 241 or Section 245. xxx xxx xxx 50. Therefore, on an application under subsection (2) of Section 241, the Tribunal can pass not only any order under Chapter XVI and if it is read with Section 246, it will be evident that Sections 339, 340 and 341 being applicable mutatis mutandis, in relation to an application made to the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt manner. xxx xxx xxx 18. Now so far as reliance placed upon the subsequent report of the RBI and the objection by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to rely upon the subsequent report and the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Mohinder Singh (supra) is concerned, as the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is in the larger public interest, this Court can take note of the subsequent development/report. However, at the same time, the same shall be in support of the order under challenge. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted and as observed hereinabove, independent to the subsequent report of the RBI, there is a specific finding with respect to the mismanagement and the fraudulent accounts. Therefore subsequent Report of the RBI Report can be taken note of, while upholding the order passed by the learned Tribunal under Section 130 of the Companies Act. As observed hereinabove, a larger public interest has been involved and reopening of the books of accounts and recasting of financial statements of the aforesaid companies is required to be carried out in the larger public interest, to find out the real truth, and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. (2) The Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging their functions under this Act 1["or under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016"], the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:- (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) subject to the provisions of sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, requisitioning any public record or document or a copy of such record or document from any office; (e)issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents; (f) dismissing a representation for default or deciding it ex parte; (g) setting aside any order of dismissal of any representation for default or any order passed by it ex parte; and (h) any other matter which may be prescribed. (3) Any order made by the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal may be enforced by that Tribunal in the same manner as if it were a decree made by a court in a suit pending there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
