9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 83 and passed the order of attachment of Appellant's Assets. 2. Brief facts of this Appeal are that the Respondent herein had initiated aforesaid Petition against the persons who had been named as accused in the FIR dated 31.01.2018 and further on 15.02.2018 filed by Punjab National Bank (In Short 'PNB'). FIRs were registered against some known and unknown accused who had been alleged to be perpetration of the huge Financial Scam against the PNB. The Respondent ordered investigation into the affairs of 107 Companies and 7 LLPs unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... site 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, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant received the certified copy of11.02.2019 and Appeal was filed on 09.05.2019. There is delay of 41 days in filing the Appeal, the delay is occurred as after receiving copy of the impugned order the Appellant obtained the copy of the Company Petition, the same required examination of volumes documents for preparation of Appeal. Thus, the delay of 41 days is bona fide hence, considering this fact, this Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 20.05.2019 condoned the delay and allowed the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter 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 apparent that vide impugned order dated 31.01.2019, 19 persons were proposed to be impleaded as Respondent, Ms. Usha Ananthasubramanian and the Appellant K.V. Brahmaji Rao are included in the list of 19 persons. The allegations against the Ms. Usha Ananthasubramanian and K.V. Brahmaji Rao (Appellant) are the same, at the relevant time. Ms. Usha Ananthasubramanian was Managing Director and CEO of PNB, Head Office, New Delhi, whereas the Appellant was the Executive Director of PNB, Head Office, New Delhi. Hon'ble Supreme Court by the aforesaid order ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thing 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 that the person who may be the head of some other organizations cannot be roped and his or her Assets cannot be attached in exercising the powers under Sections 337 & 339 of the Act. Admittedly, the Appellant was the Executive Director of PNB, Head Office, New Delhi i.e. employee of other organization. Therefore, he cannot be impleaded as Respondent in the Company Petition NO. 277 of 2018. Which is against the Nirav Modi Group and Gitanjali Group of Companies. The Case of Appellant is on same footing as of Ms. Usha Ananthasubramanian (Appellant before Hon'ble Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
