9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Principal Bench. 2. The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Principal Bench while passing the impugned order on 22.11.2019 in (IB)-939(PB)/2018 had observed the following: - "In pursuance of our direction, Mr. Manjeet Singh, Deputy ROC is present in the Court. He seeks and is granted one week time to file affidavit on the following issues:- a) The direction issued in numerous orders of admission of petition under Section 7, 9 & 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code have not been complied with wherein we have asked the ROC to update the master data of the Corporate Debtor so as to inform the public at large about the status of the comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... '. 4. According to the Appellant, the 'rule making power' is the exclusive domain of the Central Government (being a subordinate legislation) and the same is required to be placed after notification before the August House of the Parliament. 5. It is represented on behalf of the Appellant that the Adjudicating Authority before passing the impugned order ought to have issued notice to the Union of India, since the subject matter in issue concerns about the imposition of a new rule, which the said Authority has no power to make especially its direction to implead. 6. It is the stand of the Appellant that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of "Antonio S.C. Preria v. Ricardina Noronha (D) By Lrs. - (2006) 7 SC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) & (b) of the Companies Act, 2013 had provided for inspection and furnishing the certified copies of the documents kept by the Registrar on payment of requisite fees. Added further, the Tribunal was not acting as an 'Adjudicating Authority' in terms of Section 60 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Further, the impugned order has a devastating effect, since the Adjudicating Authority (Tribunal) lacks inherent jurisdiction to pass the same. 10. Per contra, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/ Bank that in the impugned order no direction was issued to the Bank and that the impugned order was passed in an Application No.2024 of 2019 filed by the Resolution Professional relating to the difficulties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Tribunal. 14. A necessary party is a person who ought to have been arrayed as a party and in whose absence no effective order can be passed by a Court of Law/ Tribunal/ Appropriate Authority. A proper party is a party who although not a necessary party is a person whose presence will enable the Authority to effectively, efficaciously, comprehensively and adequately adjudicate upon all the controversies centering around a given case. 15. In fact, 'impleadment of parties' is only a matter of fact and not a matter of Law. Addition of parties/ striking out parties of course, is a matter of discretion to be exercised by a Tribunal/ Court based on sound judicial principles. The said discretion can be exercised either on the applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order passed by the Tribunal wherein direction was issued in all cases of the 'Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code' and Company Petition, the Union of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs through Secretary be impleaded as a party respondent so that authentic record is made available by the officers of Ministry of Corporate Affairs for proper appreciation of the matter and this being applicable throughout the country to all the Benches of National Company Law Tribunal etc., such a wholesale, blanket and omnibus directions cannot be issued in single stroke, as opined by this Tribunal. Whether the Appellant through the Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs be impleaded as a necessary Party/ even as proforma Respondent before the Tribunal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er/ person can be added as a party and in other cases it is for the Applicant/ Appellant or for the Tribunal to take an ultimate decision for showing a person as a necessary or proper party. In case of misjoinder of a party, the Applicant/ Appellant/ the Tribunal has always the option to strike out/ remove the name of Union of India from the array of parties, in the proceedings pending before it. 18. In the present case, the 'Ministry of Corporate Affairs' was neither arrayed as a party nor impleaded in the subject matter before the Adjudicating Authority. Also, that the 'Registrar of Companies' had not filed any response/ reply/ counter (in respect of the clarification sought for) prior to the passing of the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
