9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rders - Since in the impugned order dated November 22, 2016 there is no reference to the Company Law Board, Delhi Bench order dated July 9, 2015 it cannot be given any preference or precedence over the order dated July 9, 2015 on the ground that it is a latest one. In view of the fact that no notice has been served upon the original petitioner and the impugned order was passed only after hearing respondent No. 2, it can only be called as an ex-parte order - In the petition, the original petitioner alleged about fraud, but there is no need to discuss that aspect on this application since the order itself is an ex-parte order. This application is allowed setting aside the ex-parte order. - I.A. No. 33 of 2016 in T.P. No. 100/397-398/NCLT/AHM/2016 (New) and C.P. No. 51/397-398/CLB/MB/2015 (Old) - - - Dated:- 5-1-2017 - Bikki Raveendra Babu, Member (J) For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S.K. Jain, Practicing Company Secretary ORDER Bikki Raveendra Babu, Member (J) 1. This application is filed by the original petitioner with a prayer to set aside/recall ex-parte order dated November 22, 2016 passed in I.A. No. 31/NCLT/AHM/2016 on the ground that it was ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irection(s) as the hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper. (iv) The said application was taken on board by the Bench on November 22, 2016 itself, on which date the main company petition T.P. No. 100 of 2016 was listed. (v) The learned Member (Judicial) passed the order on November 22, 2016. The operative portion of the order dated November 22, 2016 passed by the hon'ble Member Judicial in I.A. No. 31 of 2016 is as follows: (a) That certain banks in which the account of company (respondent No. 1) are maintained namely, HDFC Bank, Canara Bank and ICICI Bank are hereby directed to let the account be operated by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 jointly after obtaining the authorised signatures and also after completing the complete formalities as per the banking rules. The withdrawals from the bank shall be allowed for meeting the tax liabilities, the day-to-day necessary expenditure such as office rent, staff salary, as well as the other statutory compliances. For that purpose, the bank authorities are hereby authorised to place on record a letter from respondents Nos. 2 and 3 jointly explaining the purpose for which withdrawal is required. This interregnu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he copy of the said application on the original petitioner and obtained order dated November 22, 2016 from the hon'ble Tribunal. It is also stated that original respondent No. 2 never approached the petitioner for operation of bank accounts relating to the first respondent-company. It is also stated that respondent No. 2 opened the bank account with the Canara Bank and HDFC Bank by filing forged KYC documents of the petitioner and in that connection the original petitioner filed FIR with M.P. Nagar Police, Bhopal. It is also stated that the Canara Bank vide its letter dated May 19, 2015 informed the original petitioner that the bank had already stopped operation of the account and the said account will be made operational only after direction from the competent court of law. (viii) On this application, respondent No. 2 filed reply stating that I.A. No. 31 of 2016 was filed on November 22, 2016 on which date the original petition was listed and the hon'ble Tribunal had taken up the application and observed that no one is present from the side of the petitioner as it happened in the past as well and accordingly passed the order on November 22, 2016. It is further state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .A. No. 31 of 2016 on the original petitioner and other respondents. 4. As can be seen from the order dated November 22, 2016 passed in I.A. No. 31 of 2016 also, it is clear that no one was present from the side of the original petitioner. It is also mentioned in the order that it happened in the past also that the original petitioners were not present. But a perusal of the order dated September 16, 2016 shows that on that date none were present for the petitioner and respondents Nos. 1, 3 to 10. It is only respondent No. 2's professional who was present, but on August 4, 2016 before this Tribunal both the parties and representatives were not present. Therefore, it is only on September 16, 2016 and November 22, 2016 that the original petitioner was not present before this Tribunal. Moreover, the main petition was listed on November 22, 2016 to find out the reply of respondent No. 2 which is said to have been filed before the Company Law Board, Delhi Bench. The main petition was not listed for hearing on November 22, 2016. Therefore, there is no imminent necessity of appearance of the petitioner before this Bench on November 22, 2016. An application in I.A. No. 31 of 2016 has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing and disposal.--(1) Where on the date fixed for hearing the petition or application or on any other date to which such hearing may be adjourned, the applicant appears and the respondent does not appear when the petition or the application is called for hearing, the Tribunal may adjourn the hearing or hear and decide the petition or the application ex-parte. (2) Where a petition or an application has been heard ex-parte against a respondent or respondents, such respondent or respondents may apply to the Tribunal for an order to set it aside and if such respondent or respondents satisfies the Tribunal that the notice was not duly served, or that he or they were prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing (when the petition or the application was called) for hearing, the Tribunal may make an order setting aside the ex-parte hearing as against him or them upon such terms as it thinks fit. Provided that where the ex-parte hearing of the petition or application is of such nature that it cannot be set aside as against one respondent only, it may be set aside as against all or any of the other respondents also. A reading of rule 49 clearly shows that if th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
