9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1076X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y law - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, the sales had taken place in the years 2013 and 2014 where the applications for oppression and mismanagement before the Company Law Board came to be filed in September 2016 which is well beyond three months period. Therefore, it is quite clear that the even though the sales made in the years 2013 and 2014 were the subject matter of the proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal filed under Section 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, neither the National Company Law Tribunal nor the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal would have power to set aside the sales. In the absence of such power, the bar under section 430 of the Companies Act, would not apply. In T.Vinayaga Perumal Vs. T.Balan [ 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also launched before the Company Law Board complaining the oppression and mismanagement in C.P. No.171 of 2016. 3. Upon constitution of the National Company Law Tribunal, the proceedings were transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal. The National Company Law Tribunal went into the question of oppression and mismanagement and by order dated 04.06.2021 granted certain reliefs. It also directed the forensic audit of the Companies Accounts. The Tribunal arrived at a prima facie conclusion that there was oppression and mismanagement. 4. The petitioners herein came up with these applications in I.A. Nos.436 of 2017, 496 of 2017 and 491 of 2017 under order VII rule 11 as aforesaid. The main contention of the petitioners in the applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... han those referred to in clause (e): Provided that no such agreement shall be terminated, set aside or modified except after due notice and after obtaining the consent of the party concerned; (g) the setting aside of any transfer, delivery of goods, payment, execution or other act relating to property made or done by or against the company within three months before the date of the application under this section, which would, if made or done by or against an individual, be deemed in his insolvency to be a fraudulent preference; (h) removal of the managing director, manager or any of the directors of the company; (i) recovery of undue gains made by any managing director, manager or director during the period of his appointment as suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, by the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal. " 6. A very reading of the provision shows that the bar enacted therein would apply only when the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal under the Act i.e., the Companies Act is empowered to determine any matter which is also the subject matter of a Civil Suit and in such event, the proceedings before the Civil Court would be barred. The Scope of the bar enacted under law was considered by a full bench by this Court in Periathambi Goundan Vs. District Revenue Officer reported in (1980) 93 LW 169 wherein the full bench e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... side of transfers, imposes a limitation of three months. If the sale of the property of the company has taken place three months prior to the date of the application under Section 242 of the Companies Act, then the same cannot be set aside by the Company Law Tribunal. The two pre conditions laid down in Clause (g) are that the sale must have taken place within three months before filing of the petitions or during the pendency of the petitions. 8. In the case on hand, the sales had taken place in the years 2013 and 2014 where the applications for oppression and mismanagement before the Company Law Board came to be filed in September 2016 which is well beyond three months period. Therefore, it is quite clear that the even though the sales ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the question of valuation. It is settled principle of Law that a person who is not a party to the sale deed need not seek to set aside the sale. He can only seek declaration that the sale is not binding on him. This Court had held so in L.P.Alaghappa Chettiar and another Vs. V.Janardhanan and another reported in 2013 (5) CTC 12 . 11. In view of the above, I find that both contentions raised in support of the plea of rejection of plaint have no merits and they have to fail. I, therefore find no material irregularity or illegality in the order of the trial Court, dismissing the applications. The Revisions therefore fail and they are accordingly dismissed. 12. It is also stated that the appeal filed by the petitioners against the orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
