9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erit has no jurisdiction to pass any specific order and directions including interim order, though it is always open to the Court/Tribunal to ask the parties to move before an appropriate forum. As it is held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass any specific order where it has not decided case on merit, we have no other option but to set aside impugned order dated 01.03.2017 passed by NCLT. The said order is set aside, accordingly. The case stands remitted to the Tribunal. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Company Appeal (AT) No. 141 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 19-5-2017 - Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson And Mr. Balvinder Singh, Member (Technical) Present: For Appellant:- Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to all the concerned parties; iv) The petitioner as well as the Respondent No. 2 and 3 are directed to extend full co-operation to the Learned Chairperson and Auditor to discharge their duties; v) The learned Chairperson is also directed to take all relevant records and make available those records to vi) The Lear ned Chairperson's fee is fixed at for ₹ 25,000/- for Board Meetings and ₹ 50,000/- to Annual/Extra Ordinary General Meetings which is to be borne by Respondent No.1 Company apart from other expenses; vii) We direct the Auditor to take up auditing of all the relevant records. viii) We direct the Petitioner and the Respondents to make available all the records as required by the s aid Auditor as and wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... solely to the 2d Respondent at the purported Board meeting dated 3rd September, 2014 as void and illegal. Prayer was also made to convene and conduct the AGM for the year ending 3 1.03.2014 immediately for approval of the annual accounts at the Board Meeting held on 03.09.2014. 3. The grievance of the Appellant is that the Ld. Tribunal without deciding the case on merit passed the impugned order with certain directions. The arguments were advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant was neither noticed nor adjudicated by the Ld. Tribunal. 4. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondents submits that the impugned order was passed with the consent of the parties. However, from bare reading of the impugned order it is clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
