9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AL (AT) No. 126 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 17-8-2020 - (Justice Jarat Kumar Jain) Member (Judicial) , (Balvinder Singh) Member (Technical) And (Kanthi Narahari) Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Ms. Rajul Jain, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjib K. Mohanty, Sr. Panel Central Government Counsel. JUDGMENT Jarat Kumar Jain. J The Appellant K.V. Brahmaji Rao has preferred this Appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 (In Short the Act ) against the order dated 31.01.2019 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, at Mumbai (In Brief Tribunal ) in M.A. No. 406 of 2019 and M.A. No. 407 of 2019 in CP No. 277 of 2018. Whereby impleaded the Appellant in CP No. 277 of 2018 as Respondent No. 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f CEO, PNB, Head Office, New Delhi. Learned Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the Applications and also passed the order for frizzing Assets of these persons and injuncted from disposing movable and immoveable Properties/Assets which belong to them. Being aggrieved with this order, the Appellant preferred this Appeal. 4. Learned Sr. Panel Central Government Counsel raised an objection that the Appeal is time barred. The impugned order was passed on 31.01.2019, as per the Appellant he received the copy on 11.02.2019 and as per website of this Appellate Tribunal the Appeal was filed on 16.08.2019, thus, the delay in filing the Appeal is more than statutory period of 90 days. Hence, may be dismissed in limine. 5. In this regard, Lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive Director of PNB, Head Office, New Delhi. Ms. Usha Ananthasubramanian has challenged the impugned order before this Appellate Tribunal and thereafter, before Hon ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7604 of 2019 titled as Ms. Usha Ananthasubramanian Vs. Union of India, Hon ble Supreme Court vide Judgment dated 12.02.2020 allowed the Appeal. The case of the Appellant is at par with the Ms. Usha Ananthasubramanian. Therefore, the Appeal deserves to be allowed. 9. Learned Sr. Panel Central Government Counsel has not opposed the prayer. 10. After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties, we have gone through the record and also the Judgment passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ms. Usha Ananthasubramanian (Supra). It is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he business in the manner aforesaid which again refers to the business of the Company which is being mismanaged and not to the business of another company or other persons. 8.This being the case, it is clear that powers under these Sections cannot possibly be utilized in order that a person who may be the head of some other organization be roped in, and his or her assets be attached. This being the case, we set aside the impugned order passed by the NCLAT and well as the NCLT. The Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 9. We may clarify that nothing stated in this Judgment will have any effect insofar as the investigation conducted by the CBI or the investigation by the SFIO is concerned. 11. Hon ble Supreme Court held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
