9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal has necessary powers to appoint Provisional Liquidator which will also necessarily affects the rights and interests of numerous parties which may not be parties to the winding up proceedings - In this connection it is pertinent to make a mention that the Tribunal has an inherent power to pass an interim order(s) , which is just and necessary to prevent an abuse of process of the Tribunal or to advance the cause of Justice or to pass orders, which are vital to meet the ends of justice. In fact, the words, occurring in Section 273(1)(e) of the Companies Act, 2013, any other order as it thinks fit means that the Tribunal in winding up petition has wide powers to pass necessary orders. In so far as the Principles of Natural Justice are concerned, it cannot be imprisoned in a strait-jacket form. It cannot be lost sight of that a necessary party is an individual who should have been arrayed as a party and in whose absence, no effective order can be passed by a Court of Law / Tribunal , as the case may be - It is to be remembered that a proper party is a party who although not a necessary party, is a Person whose presence will enable the Tribunal to completely, effectively, effica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The National Company Law Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 19.1.2021, inter-alia at Para 11 to 13 had observed the following: "Para 11: Since the RI Company has suffered various adverse findings with cogent evidence at the hands of various Statutory Authorities, as detailed supra, it would not be proper to permit R1 Company to continue its name on the rolls of Registrar of Companies, Bangalore. Therefore, in terms of provisions of Section 283 of Companies Act, 2013, it would be just to permit Provisional Liquidator to forthwith take into his or its custody or control all the property, effects and actionable claims to which the R1 Company is or appears to be entitled to and take such steps and measures, as may be necessary, to protect and preserve the properties of the R1 Company and to avoid misuse of its property. Para 12 : So far as the contentions of the Learned Counsel for the R1 Company, as detailed supra, are concerned, it is settled position of law that principles of natural justice mandates judicial forums to afford reasonable opportunity to other side before passing any order by judicial Authorities. However, Courts/Tribunals are empowered to pass approp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent No.1" which is the marketing arm of the Government of India's Indian Space Research Organization ("ISRO") set up under the DOS. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant points out that Deutsche Telekom Asia Pte. Ltd is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom AG, which is the world's fourth largest telecommunications, media, and information technology service companies in the world and that the Government of Germany is substantial shareholder of Deutsche Telekom AG and owned approximately 32% of Deutsche Telekom in Devas at the relevant time. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant brings to the notice of this Tribunal that the investment by Deutsche Telekom in Devas was made pursuant to the approval granted by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board ('FIPB') on 18.5.2006 and was recognised as one of the largest Foreign Direct Investment into Karnataka during the period January 2000 to December 2010. 6. The plea of the Appellant is that on 25.2.2011, 'Antrix' purported to terminate the 'Devas Agreement' and to thereby cause irreparable loss to Devas leading to 'Devas' having no option but to invoke 'pre-arbitration' steps and then arbitration in accordance with arbit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'Affidavits' in support of Application for Stay (IA 5/2021, Pg.2824 Vol.XV Appeal), application for Exemption (IA 4/2021-Pg 2877-Vol.XV of the Appeal Paper Book) and in fact all the Affidavits were sworn to before a 'Notary Public' in Virgenia, USA, in accordance with the Law of 'USA' and the 'Apostles Convention'. In this regard, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant points out that all such Notarised Affidavits etc. were sent for 'Apostillation and the same will be filed before this Tribunal soon after the receipt, eight weeks from 28.1.2001, sought in IA 4/2021, due to COVID-19 restrictions in USA. 13. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant adverting to Section 421(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, points out that the words 'any person aggrieved' by an order of the Tribunal may prefer an 'Appeal' before the 'Appellate Tribunal'. Added further, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant expatiating his contention proceeds to point out that Section 421(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, does not contain any threshold conditions, bar, or limitation on who such an 'Aggrieved Person' can be. 14. The other contention advanced on behalf of the Appellant is that the impugned order dated 19.1.2021 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntends such reasons or ground nor as the impugned order adverted to such reasons or grounds. A clear cut position of the Appellant is that the 'Company Petition' filed before the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru bench is non-est in Law as such the same cannot be acted upon the 'Tribunal '. 19. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant takes a primordial stand that the C.P.No.06/BB/2021 was served on 'Devas' at 4.30 p.m. on 18.1.2021 and that the matter was listed before the 'Tribunal' for hearing on 19.1.2021 at 10.30 a.m. and immediately order appointing 'Provisional Liquidator' was passed without complying with the Companies Act, 2013 and 'Companies Winding up Rules, 2020, or permitting 'Devas' to file its 'Reply' to the petition or prayer for the Appointment of 'Provisional Liquidator'. 20. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant by referring to Paragraph 5 of the impugned order dated 19.01.2021 passed by the Tribunal contends that the only submissions made by 'Devas' were to grant 'a reasonable opportunity' and that a National Company Law Tribunal Petition) was non-compliant with the 'Act' and 'Rules'. Therefore it is the stand of the Appellant that failure to adhere to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Central Bureau of Investigation' proceedings. APEPLLANT'S CITATIONS: 25. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant refer to the decisions for the proposition that appointment of 'Provisional Liquidator' is the drastic step and should not be resorted to when assigning 'special reasons'. 1) In re London, Hamburg and Continental Exchange Bank,(1866)LR Eq 231 1866, Page 236 2) In Re.Gaya Sugar Mills Ltd. Lakshminarayan Bhandani and Ors. 1949 SCC Online Pat 32 3) Virendrasingh Bhandari and Ors. V. Nandlal Bhandari and Sons P.Ltd. (1974) 1 Comp LJ 245 (MP) 4) Kailash Prasad Mishra and Ors v. Medwin Laboratory P Ltd. 1985 SCC Online MP 194 5) The Learned Counsel for the Appellant relies on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature, Hyderabad (For the State of Telengana and the State of Hyderabad) in the case of Avon Lifesciences Limited V. Ashika Credit Capital Ltd. reported in MANU/AP/0303/2018, wherein it is observed that to contend 'the 'Hon'ble Tribunal ought to have given the 'Appellant' a 'reasonable opportunity' of making a representation. (1) Also, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant proceeds to place reliance on the decision Vivek Continental Pvt.L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irs, investigation under Companies Act, 1956, and the National Company Law Tribunal Petition under the Companies Act, 2013, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant relies on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court Jagir Singh V. Ranbir Singh and Anr. reported in 1979 1 SCC 560. 30. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that since an 'Inquiry' for 'Fraud' was initiated under the Companies Act, 1956, the provision of the Companies Act, 2013, relating to 'Fraud' could not have been applied retrospectively and refers to the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Alchemist Infra Reality Ltd.. v. Union of India and Ors. LPA No.189/2019 and Cm Appl.12577/2019 dated 18.3.2019. The First Respondent's submissions: 31. The Learned Counsel for the First Respondent submits that the First Respondent/Petitioner before the 'Tribunal' had served a notice both on the company petition and the application for the appointment of a 'Provisional Liquidator', 'Devas' Multimedia Private Limited' and Learned Senior Counsels and Learned Counsels representing the company appeared before the 'Tribunal' on 19.01.2021. It is the plea of the First Respondent that, Learned Senior Counsels and Learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 of the Appeal Memorandum) wherein it was pleaded that, "Devas was engaged in the business of delivering broadband, wireless access and audiovisual services through an integrated hybrid satellite and terrestrial communication system and from inception resources and funds had been raised from its shareholders in developing technology and carrying out various acts in furtherance of its obligation under the 'Devas' Agreement". 36. The Learned Counsel for the First Respondent points out that it is a well settled position of law that any false statement in a 'Sworn Memorandum of Appeal' will be an adequate ground to reject the Appeal inlimine and in this connection reliance of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sciemed Overseas Inc v. BOC India Ltd & others reported in 2016(3) SCC page 70 (Vide Paragraph No 28 & 29). 37. The Learned Counsel for the First Respondent projects an argument that 'Fraud' vitiates everything and such a Litigant is not entitled to any relief whatsoever and in this connection relied upon the following decisions. i) Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam v. Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh reported in 2019 (14) SCC 449 at Paragraph 68. ii) Bhauruo Dagdu Paralkar v. Sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the First Respondent cites the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam v. Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh reported in (2019) 14 SCC at Page 449, wherein it is observed that no right can be claimed by a 'Fraudster' on the ground of technicalities. 44. The Learned Counsel for the First Respondent relies on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2005) 7 SCC at Page 605, wherein it is observed that 'Fraud' is an act of deliberate deception with design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. 'It is a cheating intended to get an advantage'. 45. The Learned Counsel for the First Respondent refers to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shrist Dhawan (SMT) v. M/s. Shaw Brothers reported in (1992) 1 SCC at Page 534, wherein it is observed that 'Burden to prove fraud or collusion is on the person who alleges it. 46. The Learned Counsel for the First Respondent points out the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sciemed Overseas Inc v. BOC India Limited & others reported in (2016) 3 SCC at Page 70, wherein it is observed that 'Sanctit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provals to the said Mr.Mohan. 51. The Learned Director (Legal & Prosecution) for the second Respondent contends that the Former Director(s) inspite of numerous opportunities provided to them, had failed to appear before the 'Provisional Liquidator' even through 'video conference' and some of the Director(s) had sent a similar 'Reply' stating that 'Auditors' are best positioned to provide the information requisite and as a matter of fact, the 'Auditor' of the Company cannot step into the shoes of the 'Director'. 52. On behalf of the second Respondent, it is submitted that the Former Management had fraudulently conducted the affairs of the Company from the beginning and had the technology or 'IPR" to develop such technology which they claimed. 53. Apart from this, the 'French Authorities' issued a 'Letter Rogatory' which clearly established that 'DMPL' misrepresented in 2005 which they claimed to have the ownership of IPR to use the technology which was not unknown to the world. It is the stand of the second Respondent that the present Appeal is to be dismissed on maintainability' on the Locus standi of the 'Appellant' and fraudulent intend of the Company since the inception which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they accepted the notice for the third Respondent/First Respondent and prayed for some time to file short reply. In regard to the interim reliefs sought for by the First Respondent/Petitioner(Government Company), in fact, on behalf of the Third Respondent/First Respondent Company, it was submitted before the 'Tribunal' that the Company is suffering from various litigations and some of the properties of the Company were also attached by 'Statutory Authorities' and that although the 'Central Bureau of Investigation' had filed a 'charge-sheet', the case is pending and all the more there was no urgency on the part of the First Respondent/Petitioner to prefer the Application in a hurried manner, for the simple reason that 'cause of action' arose, long time back. 57. On behalf of the Second Respondent/Ministry of Corporate Affairs, 'notice' was accepted by Shri Mr.Manmohan Juneja, Director General of Corporate Affairs and Mr.Sanjay Shouri, Director ,Legal & Prosecution and they supported the case of the First Respondent/Petitioner. 58. The main grievance of the 'Appellant' is that the 'Devas' Company was grossly deprived of 'Principles of Natural Justice' and in fact, more than 2400 pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Directors' of the Third Respondent which is essential before anyone represents the Company. Further that, the Application for waiver to 'Apostil' and in the absence of 'Resolution' by the 'Board of Directors, itself is not maintainable. 65. The other ground taken on behalf of the Second Respondent is that from the beginning the fraudulent intent of the Company may be unearthed by the 'Provisional Liquidator' and a reference is made to Section 339 of the Companies Act, 2013 in regard to all liability for fraudulent conduct of business as a matter of fact, it is represented on behalf of the second Respondent that 'Provisional Liquidator' ought to allow to continue the unravel the massive fraud because of the reason that it is just a necessary to lift 'Corporate Veil' to identify all the persons who were acting as 'facilitators'. 66. Before the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench in C.P.No.06/BB/2021, the Appellant is not a 'party'. However, the Appellant being aggrieved against the impugned order, in appointing 'Official Liquidator' Bengaluru as 'Provisional Liquidator' in respect of the Third Respondent/First Respondent Company has preferred the instant Appeal as a 'A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty, is a 'Person' whose presence will enable the 'Tribunal' to completely, effectively, efficaciously and adequately to determine all the issues/questions encircling around a particular case. 74. It cannot be gain said that in 'Law' 'adding of parties' is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised by a 'Tribunal' resting upon a well laid down judicial principle and this discretion can be exercised by a 'Tribunal' either on the 'Application of a Petitioner/Respondent' or on the 'Application of an Individual' who is not a party of any pending proceedings etc. 75. For 'adding of a party' or 'impleading of a party', in regard to a pending main proceedings, the 'Tribunal' is to exercise due care, circumspection and caution. 76. It is trite in Law that an 'unlawful purpose' in 'Memorandum' is void and is not be enforced. Furthermore, if a Company's business is 'unlawful', its 'locus' can be questioned on legal plane. 77. It is significant to make a mention that as per Section 271(b) of the Companies Act, 2013, 'if the Company has acted against the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the order in any other manner provided, the 'Tribunal' can by an order direct th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
