9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - - Dated:- 26-6-2019 - K. Anantha Padmanabha Swamy , Member ( J ) For the Appellant : Rakesh Sanghi , Advocate and S. Chidambaram , PCS For the Respondents : Debal Banerji, Senior Advocate , Bipin Shukla , Nikhil Mehra , D. V. A. S Ravi and Sharad Sanghi , Advocates ORDER All the above Applications are pertaining to the affairs of M/s. Mancherial Cement Company Private Limited, therefore, all the IA's are taken up and being disposed through this common order. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their position in the main C.P. I.A. No. 28/2019 IA 33/2019 1. IA No. 28/2019 is filed by the Respondent No. 23 in the original Company Petition and the IA 33/2019 is filed by the Respondent No. 12 in the main company petition. The applicant in IA 28/2019 stated that as per the order of this Tribunal made in CA No. 391/2018, the following documents have been furnished to the applicant: a) All the documents for proving cancellation of the MOU and forfeiture of advance amount by the Associated Cement Company Limited; b) The audited books being maintained Respondent/applicant under section 44 of the Income Tax act along with all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmons for cross examination of Mr. Chandrakant Agarwal (Original Petitioner), Mr. Shyam Sunder Agarwal, Respondent No. 4 (Original Respondent No. 27) and Mr. K. Vidyasagar Rao, Respondent No. 3 (Original Respondent No. 35) in this Application. The Applicant herein have also stated that Respondent No. 4 and Respondent No. 3 are supporting the original Petitioners on the count of receipt of cash, hence, they are required to be examined by the Applicant. b) However, the courts pass Judgment/decree on the facts admitted or not refuted by the opposite party. Hence, the court is obliged to consider facts pleaded and disputed by the parties in pleadings before allowing cross examination. Rule 39 of NCLT Rules provides for recording evidence. The scope of the cross examination is very limited and narrow. Though the cross examination of witness is a matter of right while adjudication of suit before a Civil Court but the same does not apply to adjudication of Petitions before NCLT. The Cross Examination of the witness is at discretion of this Tribunal. c) The proceedings before NCLT is a summary proceeding. The Tribunal has to adjudicate the issues on the basis of affidavits produced b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kant Agarwal (Original Petitioner), Mr. Shyam Sunder Agarwal, Respondent No. 4 (Original Respondent No. 27) and Mr. K. Vidyasagar Rao, Respondent No. 3 (Original Respondent NO. 48). Therefore the Respondents prayed for dismissal of the application. IA. No. 29/2019 IA No. 30/2019; 5. IA No. 29/2019 and IA No. 30/2019 are filed by the Respondent No. 1, 2 23 respectively in the two original Company Petitions and in both the IAs they have sought an Order from this Tribunal eschewing the disputed photocopies of the documents filed by the Respondents/Applicants on 01.11.2018 (page 2 to 4 documents Sl. No. (i) to (xxxlviii) as the same are disputed and inadmissible in evidence. 6. The Respondent No. 1/Petitioner No. 1, Respondent No. 58/Respondent No. 48 and Respondent No. 25/Respondent No. 27 filed counters inter-alia stating that the Applicants have filed this application along with another application (i.e. IA. No. 30/2019) for eschewing documents in CP. No. 3/2008 (TP. No. 147/HDB/2016). Since, he had filed some documents in both the cases as the issues and parties are also common and his counter to this present application is the same as of his counter filed to I.A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missing 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. 11. Rule 39(1) of the NCLT Rules empowers the Tribunal to direct the parties to give evidence, if any, by affidavit. Sub-Rule (2) thereof also confers power on the Tribunal to order cross-examination of any deponent on the points of conflict either through information and communication technology facilities such as video conferencing or otherwise as may be directed by the Tribunal, on an application moved by any party. 12. A conjoint reading of the above provisions makes it clear that strict rules of pleading and proof of the standards of civil courts are not required to be applied to proceedings before the Tribunal, and that they should be guided primarily by the principles of natural justice. 13. In Union of India Vs. Madras Bar Association (2010) 11 SCC 1 - the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that while courts are governed by detailed statutory procedural rules, in particular the Code of Civil Procedure and Evidence Act, requiring an elaborate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the documents have been furnished only on 01.11.2019 and on the same day the learned Counsel commenced their arguments and therefore he was not given an opportunity to examine the documents and the applicant in IA No. 33/2019 contended that those documents are dubious and the respondents have made false statements on affidavit, therefore he prayed for allowing the application. It is well settled that the proceedings before this Tribunal is summary in nature and all the documents are filed on oath by executing affidavit by the concerned parties. The parties have every opportunity during the hearing of the main petition to prove that the said documents are dubious or fabricated and it is for to the Tribunal to decide whether the documents filed by the parties are genuine or dubious. If the Tribunal comes to a conclusion that the documents are fabricated and dubious, then concerned parties are liable to be prosecuted for the acts done as the documents are filed before this Tribunal on oath. The other side is also at liberty to initiate action before the appropriate authority, if so desired. In view of this I am not inclined to allow the applications filed in IA No. 28/2019 I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
