9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1965X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treat the Appellant as the impleaded Respondent. At such preliminary stage, it was not necessary for the NCLT to go into what has been observed in OS 590 of 2009 relating to disputes between the parties, especially when it is stated before us (and not denied by the counsel for Respondents) that Appeal against the Impugned Order in OS 590 of 2009 is still pending. The impleadment application already stood disposed vide this Tribunal s earlier Judgement and the NCLT had no other option but to proceed with the matter treating the Appellant as party Respondent - petition disposed off. - Company Appeal (AT) No.410 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 19-9-2018 - Justice A.I.S. Cheema Member (Judicial) And Balvinder Singh Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri Delep Goswami and Shri Anirrud Goswami, Advocates For the Respondent : Shri Ayush Choudhary, Advocate JUDGEMENT A.I.S. CHEEMA, J. : 1. This Appeal arises out of the Impugned Order by which the National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench, Chennai ( NCLT , in short) sat over the Order of this Appellate Tribunal which had set aside the earlier Order of the NCLT rejecting impleadment of the Appellant and had b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in CA 1/2013 that the Company was incorporated in 1976 with the office bearers of the Appellant as the Board of Directors and the Appellant had assigned 2 acres of land to the Company for the business objectives and the Appellant (Applicant) had been allotted 520 equity shares of ₹ 100/- each in the Company and since then it was holding the same. The Appellant claimed that it had not effected transfer of the shares to any person including the alleged transferees. The Appellant questioned the claim of original Petitioner that the shares had been transferred on 22.10.2008 pursuant to alleged Resolution of the Appellant dated 24.08.2008 and allege ratification in General Meeting dated 14.12.2008. The Appellant claimed that the original Petitioner had been removed from the office of Secretary of the Appellant and further claimed that the original Respondent No.2 - Prabhakaran Nair Cheruvanchery had been elected Secretary of the Appellant on 11.12.2005 and since then, the activities and affairs of the Appellant Society had been carried out by the other Respondents mentioned in the Company Petition. Appellant claimed that since the shares of Applicant were claimed to have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 017 (Diary No.6149 Page - 11) claiming in the cause title and arraying itself - as IMPLEADED AS CONTESTING PARTY RESPONDENT . The application referred to the earlier developments and how this Tribunal had passed the earlier Judgement in CA 2/2017. The Appellant claimed before NCLT that this Tribunal had accepted the Appellant as a contesting party Respondent and thus, it was making submissions on merits of the pending Company Petition. The Appellant pointed out that its authorized representatives were already on record and claimed that the original Respondent No.2 - Prabhakaran Nair will be representing in dual capacity before the Tribunal. The Appellant thus referred to the case it was putting up and claimed that its shares had never been sold and transferred or alienated in favour of anyone and that the contesting party Respondent had been and continues to be majority shareholder in the Respondent Company. The Appellant referred to Notice dated 28.11.2005 calling meeting of the Appellant to remove the original Petitioner and one Shri P. Venugopala Menon and that they were removed from their positions in the meeting held on 11.12.2005. Referring to these and other facts i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heard the counsel for both sides who go on asserting rival claims but we find the approach of NCLT quite surprising in making the above observations after what had been observed by this Tribunal in para 3 of its earlier Judgement in CA 2/2017, which we have reproduced above. Such approach of the NCLT, we find not to be in accordance with judicial discipline expected. The earlier order in CA 1/2013 was at interim stage seeking impleadment which prayer of Appellant was rejected and against such order at interim stage when this Tribunal in Appeal had ruled in favour of the Appellant, the matter should have proceeded further from the stage of impleadment. The NCLT could not have again sat over the matter to see whether the Appellant had made out a case or not of being shareholder. The original Petitioner has proposed to maintain the petition on the basis of support of 23 members. The Appellant was pointing out that the claim on the basis of which 23 members claimed rights, is a disputed question and the Respondents from whom those persons claimed to have got rights was the disputed question. In such situation in the first place itself, CA 1/2013 should have been allowed. When the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
