9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er an Appellate Forum is able to pronounce judgement/pass orders in main case on the materials available before it, without taking into consideration the Additional Documents/evidence sought to be produced. In the absence of the Additional Documents sought to be projected, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Lis in TA No.18/2021 can be determined, of course, based on the available materials on record - Application dismissed. - IA NO.580/2021 IN TA NO.18/2021 (COMPANY APPEAL (AT) No.325/2019) - - - Dated:- 10-12-2021 - (Justice M. Venugopal) Member (Judicial) And (Mr. Kanthi Narahari) Member (Technical) Mr. K. Ravi, Mr Shantanu Singh, Mr. P. Murugan, Advocates for Appellant. Mr. Krishna Srinivasan and Ms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Applicant/Appellant, in recent years, this act of oppression is escalated and so far, the majority had appropriated more than ₹ 700 crores for themselves and that the Applicant/Appellant was paid only a dividend of ₹ 20 crores. 5. The Learned /Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant contends that the Working Sheet showing the figures for 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-2021, duly certified by the Appellant s Auditors clearly establish the fact that the main act of oppression is on the increase. As a matter of fact, the said figures exhibit that the profit to the Main Holding Company is adversely affected and gets reduced because of the majority, especially Mrs Mallika Srinivasan and her daughter Lakshmi Venu. 6. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fide manner and, therefore, the Learned Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant prays for allowing the IA No.580/2021 in TA No.18/2021 in Comp. App (AT) No.325/2019, of course, in the interest of justice. 7. In response, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1,3, 4. 6 to 11, 13, 16 submits that the Additional Documents sought to be ushered in by the Applicant/Appellant in IA NBoi.580/2021 in TA No.18/2021 in Comp App (AT) No.325/2019 are indeed subject matter of the instant pending Appeal before this Tribunal and that the Tribunal had very elaborately discussed the subject matter in issue and passed the impugned order in TCP No.1/2016 (CP 94/1999) and these Additional Documents sought to be introduced by the Applicant/Appellant at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g one and even the certification made by the Appellant s Auditor in respect of the Working Sheet for the past four years (2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21) is a self serving one and even without the Additional Documents in IA NO.580/2021 this Tribunal can decide the main Appeal, because of the fact that the Tribunal had considered all aspects of the matter in the impugned order in a very elaborate manner. 11 The Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.24-26 contends that the Applicant/Appellant is trying to buttress the case and in fact before the Tribunal the Balance Sheet was produced and in fact the Annual Report for 2018 was before the Tribunal and in any event, IA No.580/2021 is not to be allowed to plug loophole of the case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dmission of such evidence. Thus, provision does not apply, when on the basis of evidence on record, the Appellate Court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment. The matter is entirely within the discretion of the court and is to be used sparingly. Such a discretion is only a judicial discretion circumscribed by the limitation specified in the rule itself. (Vide: K. Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1526; The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham Ors., AIR 1965 SC 1008; Soonda Ram Anr. v. Rameshwaralal Anr., AIR 1975 SC 479; and Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy Ors., AIR 1979 SC 553). 26. The Appellate Court should not, ordinarily allow new evidence to be adduced in order to enable a party t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be admitted in appeal as a party guilty of remissness in the lower court is not entitled to the indulgence of being allowed to give further evidence under this rule. So a party who had ample opportunity to produce certain evidence in the lower court but failed to do so or elected not to do so, cannot have it admitted in appeal. (Vide: State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, AIR 1957 SC 912; and S. Rajagopal v. C.M. Armugam Ors., AIR 1969 SC 101) . 16. As far as the present case is concerned, in view of the fact even in the absence of the Additional Documents sought to be projected in IA No.580/2021 in TA No. 18/2021 in Comp App (AT) No.325/2019, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Lis in TA No.18/2021 (Comp Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
