9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bulk of the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 relevant to the present controversy was notified on 30th August 2018 and with Section 46 dealing with Certificate of Shares was notified on 1st April 2014. The ratio of Jai Mahal Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Standard Chartered Bank is of no help to the plaintiff companies as the same were decided in the context of the Companies Act, 1956 and hence, are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Even otherwise, this Court is afraid that such a plea taken by the learned senior counsel cannot be sustained particularly in view of Section 465 of the Act, 2013 which deals with Repeal of certain enactments and savings as well as the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Shashi Prakash Khemkha (D) Through LRs vs. NEPC Micon, [ 2019 (2) TMI 971 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court being confronted with an identical plea, held that We are conscious of the fact that in the present case, the cause of action has arisen at a stage prior to this enactment. However, we are of the view that relegating the parties to civil suit now would not be the appropriate remedy, especially considering the manner in wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lace on 27th August 2013. Having perused the scheme of the Act, 2013, on the first sight though it appears that the disputes at hand between the parties can be adjudicated by the NCLT but in my opinion, such a decision would render the Appellants herein remediless as TCL has been dissolved and is no more in existence. The fundamental principle behind the bar on the jurisdiction of the civil court is that the there must adequacy of remedy being available to the parties who are relegated out of the civil Courts and they must not be rendered remediless. This Court does not find any merit in the objection of the Respondents that the subsequent liquidation of TCL will have no bearing on the present case. No corporate entity now exists in the form of TCL which may be governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. Hence, it cannot be said that the suit filed by the plaintiff companies was barred under Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013. There is an inherent right in every person as per Section 9 of the Code to bring a civil suit setting forth as to how the plaintiff s legal rights have been violated for which he/she is seeking the indulgence of the Court and every interp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25th January 2011 with Respondent No.3 to transfer the said 50.21% of the issued share capital of TCL to the Respondent No.3, and the Respondent No.3 in return agreed to deposit Rs. 60 lakhs with the plaintiff companies as security for the performance of the said MoU. In furtherance of the MoU, the plaintiff companies delivered the original share certificates covering the shares along with a Transfer Deed signed in blank as a security for the fulfilment of its obligation under the MoU. It was further agreed between the parties to the said MoU that the Respondent No.3 will not lodge the said shares for transfer until the conclusion of the proceedings before the BIFR and hence, till such time the plaintiff companies would remain as the owners of the respective shares and that the said MoU does not confer any right or title in the Respondent No.3 in the said shares except merely an option to purchase the same after conclusion of the proceedings before the BIFR. 4. Subsequent to the above-mentioned events, the erstwhile Chairman, Mr. VN Dhoot, of the plaintiff companies was approached by the Respondent No.2 with an offer to purchase the said shareholding of the plaintiff companies i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansferred in favour of the Respondent No.1 and 2 jointly. 8. On 3rd September 2013, TCL wrote another email to the plaintiff companies thereby, demanding the original share certificates of the said 30 lakhs shares with a condition that, in case the original share certificates were not handed over or if the plaintiff companies chose not to respond before 5:00 P.M. on 5th September 2013, it will be considered that the Appellants have lost the said share certificates and TCL shall issue duplicate share certificates in favour of Respondent No.1. In response, vide email dated 5th September 2013, the plaintiff companies refused to hand over the original share certificate to TCL on the ground that it was not in the possession of them and re-iterated its stand to refund the entire sum of ninety lakhs rupees. In the meantime, TCL which was impleaded as a contesting Defendant, was liquidated and was ordered to be dissolved vide order dated 24th November 2020 passed by the NCLT, Chandigarh Branch. 9. Being aggrieved with the fact that the Respondent No.1 and 2 were resolute on issuance of the duplicate share certificates despite the plaintiff companies having entered into a MoU with Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he NCLT are only summary in nature and hence, the NCLT is not empowered to adjudicate upon the prayers sought in the instant case as it requires leading of evidence at length. It is submitted that on a bare perusal of Section 58 of the Act, 2013 it can be deciphered that NCLT has no power to decide the issues of title and it can only decide the issue of rectification of register of members. It is further submitted that the Respondents No.1 and 2 have manufactured the minutes of meeting dated 27th August 2013 which have been impugned by way of the instant case and hence, such a plea can also be adjudicated only by the civil Courts and not the NCLT. 14. Mr. Mehta has also taken a vehement plea that the case at hand is not governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 rather the entire dispute at hand is governed by the provisions contained in the Companies Act, 1956. He has also submitted that the facts of the CS(OS) 5700/2016 relates to the period when even the Companies Act, 2013 was not notified and by no stretch of imagination can the present disputes be governed by the Companies Act, 2013. 15. Learned senior counsel has also contended that the learned trial Court h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such matter is exclusively with the Company Court. It was observed: (Ammonia case [(1998) 7 SCC 105] , SCC p. 122, para 31) 31. It cannot be doubted that in spite of exclusiveness to decide all matters pertaining to the rectification it has to act within the said four corners and adjudication of such matters cannot be doubted to be summary in nature. So, whenever a question is raised the court has to adjudicate on the facts and circumstances of each case. If it truly is rectification, all matters raised in that connection should be decided by the court under Section 155 [Ed.: Corresponding to Section 111 of the present Act, before its amendment by Act 31 of 1988.] and if it finds adjudication of any matter not falling under it, it may direct a party to get his right adjudicated by a civil court. Unless jurisdiction is expressly or implicitly barred under a statute, for violation or redress of any such right the civil court would have jurisdiction. 17. Thus, there is a thin line in appreciating the scope of jurisdiction of the Company Court/Company Law Board. The jurisdiction is exclusive if the matter truly relates to rectification but if the issue is alien to rect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of the first respondent as the judgment of the Karnataka High Court has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 31. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Section 10GB of the Companies Act, 1956, which was inserted by the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002, the suit is barred by the provisions of the Companies Act, is devoid of merits. As already held supra, the second relief of permanent injunction relates to title of the share and this Section is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned Judge held that the suit relates to title of the share and therefore dismissed the application. The judgment relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner do not advance the case of the petitioner. On the other hand, the judgments relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. (iv) K. Ravinder Reddy Vs. Alliance Business School Ors. Company Appeal No. 8/2016 (Kar HC). 41. We may record that, by now it is well settled that the jurisdiction of the CLB is summary in nature more particularly when by express omission of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the plaintiffs in CS (OS) 285/2017 fall, statutorily, within the purview of jurisdiction of the NCLT. 119. There is, in fact, no provision, in the Act, whereunder the claim contained in CS (OS) 285/2017, as made by the plaintiffs - irrespective of the merit or demerit thereof - could have been preferred before the NCLT. No case of exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, under Section 430 of the Act or, consequently, under section 9 of the CPC can, therefore, be said to have been made out. 17. In view of the above discussion on facts and law, it is submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in not considering the fact of dissolution of TCL and accordingly, the order dated 21st March 2022 rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside. On behalf of the Respondents: 18. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents has refuted the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the appellants by contending that from the perusal of the plaint as well as the memorandum of appeal, it emerges that the Appellants are seeking the following reliefs: a. Cancellation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The order is appealable to the appellate tribunal. The Tribunal has to apply the principles of natural justice. Under Section 242(2)(d) of the 2013 Act, the Tribunal can impose restrictions on the transfer or allotment of the shares of the company. It can also pass an interim order under Section 242(4) of the 2013 Act. Consequences for non-compliance have also been provided under Section 242(4) of the 2013 Act. The Plaintiffs have a right to apply Section 242 of the 2013 Act as they own 99.96% shareholding which has been diluted to 21.44%. Any member with more than 1/10th of the issued share capital can approach the Tribunal. Thus, even as per Jai Kumar Arya (supra), the order being one, which can be passed under Section 242 of the 2013 Act, the NCLT has the jurisdiction. In Jai Kumar Arya (supra), the Court was concerned with the power of removal of directors, which is distinct from the disputes involved in the present case. However, by applying the tests laid down therein, it is clear in the facts of this case that involving issues relating to allotment of share capital, alteration and rectification of the register of members, the NCLT is `empowered to decide' -leading to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectors become bound by the same. 31. The contesting Respondents have relied on Judgement in the matter of Ammonia Supplies Corporation (P) Ltd. Versus Modern Plastic Containers Pvt. Ltd. and others reported in 1998 7 SCC 105 and the learned NCLT has also referred to this Judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court so as to state that there are contentious issues and they cannot be looked into under Section 59 Petition of the Act. This Tribunal had the occasion of considering Section 59 in the changed context of the Companies Act, 2013 coming into force in the matter of Smiti Golyan Ors. Vs. Nulon India Limited Ors. reported in MANU/NL/0118/2019. We had observed in that Judgement as under:- 21. In para 31 of the Judgement in the matter of Ammonia Supplies portions of which we have reproduced above, the Hon ble Supreme Court had observed that there was nothing under the Companies Act expressly barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and thus mandated that the Court should examine whether prima facie what is said is a complicated question or not. The earlier Section 10 GB of the companies Act, 1956 relating to Civil Court not to have jurisdiction, does not ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... force, by the Tribunal or the Appellate. The effect of the aforesaid provision is that in matters in respect of which power has been conferred on the NCLT, the jurisdiction of the civil court is completely barred. It is not in dispute that were a dispute to arise today, the civil suit remedy would be completely barred and the power would be vested with the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 59 of the said Act. We are conscious of the fact that in the present case, the cause of action has arisen at a stage prior to this enactment. However, we are of the view that relegating the parties to civil suit now would not be the appropriate remedy, especially considering the manner in which Section 430 of the Act is widely worded. We are thus of the opinion that in view of the subsequent developments, the appropriate course of action would be to relegate the appellants to remedy before the NCLT under the Companies Act, 2013. It is apparent that now even otherwise, exclusive jurisdiction with regard to Section 59 is of the NCLT. NCLT would now clearly have jurisdiction to deal with rectification and all questions including incidental and peripheral questions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n has now changed with coming into force of Company Appeal (AT) N0.222 of 2018 Companies Act, 2013 and Section 430 of the Act providing that Civil Court would not have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine by or under this Act. Under the new Companies Act - Section 59, it is for the NCLT to consider if the name of any person is without sufficient cause entered or omitted from the register of members of a company. Recently in the matter of Shahi Prakash Khemka (Dead) Through LRs. and Another Versus NEPC Micon (Now called NEPC India Ltd.) and Others Chdl Appeal Nos.1965 - 1966 of 2014 decided on 8th January, 2019 - 2019 SCC OnLine 223, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealt with disputes which were before the Hon'ble Supreme Court relating to exercise of power under Section 111-A of the Companies Act, 1956 (relating to rectification of register on transfer) and noticed above Judgement in the matter of Ammonia Supplies . 21. Learned counsel has further submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that the maintainability of a suit and jurisdiction of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncerned, same is meritless because the said Act came into force in the August, 2013 and present suit had been filed in the year 2015. Further, the nominee director Yatinder Vir Singh wrote to defendant No. 1 and informed to Y. N. Dhoot on 05.09.2013. The alleged meeting of Board of Directors of the defendant No. 1 was purportedly held on 27.08.2013. The previous Act (The Companies Act, 1956) was repealed by Section 465 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Company Law Board constituted under the Companies Act, 1956 was to be dissolved on the constitution of the NCLT and NCLAT in view of Section 466 of the Companies Act, 2013. The NCLT and NCLAT have already been constituted. 26. I am in agreement that with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court inasmuch as the bulk of the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 relevant to the present controversy was notified on 30th August 2018 and with Section 46 dealing with Certificate of Shares was notified on 1st April 2014. The ratio of Jai Mahal Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Standard Chartered Bank (supra) is of no help to the plaintiff companies as the same were decided in the context of the Companies Act, 1956 and hence, are n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal requirements. In other words, law and societal advancements go hand in hand and the law has to be modified/adjusted in a way so as to always cater to the ever dynamic needs of the society. In this background, though in a different context, it is apposite to refer to the following lines written by Joseph P. Bradley, former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of United States of America. Society cannot exist without law. Law is the bond of society: that which makes it, that which preserves it and keeps it together. It is, in fact, the essence of civil society. 30. As a natural corollary, Section 9 also envisages certain restrictions as it would be unreasonable to expect that such a provision of magnanimous scope can be enacted by the Parliament without any qualifications/exceptions. It is necessary to reproduce Section 9 of the Code: 9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred.- The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. [Explanation I].-A suit in which the right to property or to an office is conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... howsoever frivolous the claim, that the law confers no such right to sue. A suit for its maintainability requires no authority of law and it is enough that no statute bars the suit. But the position in regard to appeals is quite the opposite. 34. It is apposite to refer to the milestone decision of a Constitution Bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Dhulabhai vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1969 SC 78 , wherein the apex court laid down the following principles relating to the exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts: (1) Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special tribunals the Civil Courts' jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the Civil Courts would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. (2) Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presumption should be made in favour of the jurisdiction of a civil Court and the provisions of exclusion of jurisdiction of a Court must be strictly construed. If there ever arises any suspicion about the ousting of the jurisdiction of a civil Court, then the Courts are duty bound to lean towards an interpretation which would uphold the jurisdiction of a civil Court. And, if the remedy provided by a statute is not adequate and all questions cannot be decided by a special tribunal, the jurisdiction of a civil court is not barred. 36. At this stage, before deciding as to whether the civil court s jurisdiction is barred or not, it is pertinent to refer to the Statement of Object and Reasons; and certain provisions of the Act, 2013 which throws light upon the powers and jurisdiction of the NCLT as well as the Scheme of the Act, 2013. Statement of Objects and Reasons.- The Companies Act, 1956 had been enacted with the object to consolidate and amend the law relating to the companies and certain other associations. The said Act has been in force for about fifty-five years and had been amended several times. 2. In view of changes in the national and international economic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the Registrar a return of allotment in such manner as may be prescribed. (5) In case of any default under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4), the company and its officer who is in default shall be liable to a penalty, for each default, of one thousand rupees for each day during which such default continues or one lakh rupees, whichever is less. 46. Certificate of shares.-( 1) A certificate, 79[issued under the common seal, if any, of the company or signed by two directors or by a director and the Company Secretary, wherever the company has appointed a Company Secretary], specifying the shares held by any person, shall be prima facie evidence of the title of the person to such shares. (2) A duplicate certificate of shares may be issued, if such certificate- (a) is proved to have been lost or destroyed; or (b) has been defaced, mutilated or torn and is surrendered to the company. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the articles of a company, the manner of issue of a certificate of shares or the duplicate thereof, the form of such certificate, the particulars to be entered in the register of members and other matters shall be such as may be p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, depository participant, the holder of the securities or the Securities and Exchange Board, direct any company or a depository to set right the contravention and rectify its register or records concerned. 179. Powers of Board.-( 1) The Board of Directors of a company shall be entitled to exercise all such powers, and to do all such acts and things, as the company is authorised to exercise and do: Provided that in exercising such power or doing such act or thing, the Board shall be subject to the provisions contained in that behalf in this Act, or in the memorandum or articles, or in any regulations not inconsistent therewith and duly made thereunder, including regulations made by the company in general meeting: Provided further that the Board shall not exercise any power or do any act or thing which is directed or required, whether under this Act or by the memorandum or articles of the company or otherwise, to be exercised or done by the company in general meeting. (2) No regulation made by the company in general meeting shall invalidate any prior act of the Board which would have been valid if that regulation had not been made. (3) The Board of Dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the right of the company in general meeting to impose restrictions and conditions on the exercise by the Board of any of the powers specified in this section. 241. Application to Tribunal for relief in cases of oppression, etc.- (1) Any member of a company who complains that- (a) the affairs of the company have been or are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest or in a manner prejudicial or oppressive to him or any other member or members or in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the company; or (b) the material change, not being a change brought about by, or in the interests of, any creditors, including debenture-holders or any class of shareholders of the company, has taken place in the management or control of the company, whether by an alteration in the Board of Directors, or manager, or in the ownership of the company's shares, or if it has no share capital, in its membership, or in any other manner whatsoever, and that by reason of such change, it is likely that the affairs of the company will be conducted in a manner prejudicial to its interests or its members or any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... odified 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 such and the manner of utilisation of the recovery including transfer to Investor Education and Protection Fund or repayment to identifiable victims; (j) the manner in which the managing director or manager of the company may be appointed subsequent to an order removing the existing managing director or manager of the company made under clause (h); (k) appointment of such number of persons as directors, who may be required by the Tribunal to report to the Tribunal on such matters as the Tribunal may direct; (l) imposition of cost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... modification of certain agreements.-( 1) Where an order made under Section 242 terminates, sets aside or modifies an agreement such as is referred to in sub-section (2) of that section,- (a) such order shall not give rise to any claims whatever against the company by any person for damages or for compensation for loss of office or in any other respect either in pursuance of the agreement or otherwise; (b) no managing director or other director or manager whose agreement is so terminated or set aside shall, for a period of five years from the date of the order terminating or setting aside the agreement, without the leave of the Tribunal, be appointed, or act, as the managing director or other director or manager of the company: Provided that the Tribunal shall not grant leave under this clause unless notice of the intention to apply for leave has been served on the Central Government and that Government has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. 347[(1-A) The person who is not a fit and proper person pursuant to sub-section (4A) of Section 242 shall not hold the office of a director or any other office connected with the conduct and m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Khemkha (D) Through LRs vs. NEPC Micon (supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court while interpreting Section 430 of the Act, 2013, made the following pertinent observations: Learned counsel for the appellants says that the issue raised by the appellants qua the transfer of shares, whether done rightly or wrongly, has to be adjudicated by some forum whether it be a civil suit or the exercise of jurisdiction by the then Company Law Board. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the view expressed in Ammonia Supplies Corporation (P) Ltd. vs. Modern Plastic Containers Pvt. Ltd. and Others (1998) 7 SCC 105 , to canvass the proposition that while examining the scope of Section 155 (the predecessor to Section 111), a view was taken that the power was fairly wide, but in case of a serious dispute as to title, the matter could be relegated to a civil suit. The submission of the learned counsel is that the subsequent legal developments to the impugned order have a direct effect on the present case as the Companies Act, 2013 has been amended which provides for the power of rectification of the Register under Section 59 of the said Act. Learned counsel has also dra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the creation of Constitution of NCLAT has been specifically upheld in 2010 judgment. It cannot be denied that this very Petitioner had specifically questioned the Constitutional validity of NCLAT in the earlier writ petition and even advanced the arguments on this very issue. This fact is specifically noted in the said judgment. The provision pertaining to the constitution of the Appellate Tribunal i.e., Section 10FR of the Companies Act, 1956 was duly taken note of. Challenge was laid to the establishments of NCLT as well as NCLAT on the ground that the Parliament had resorted to tribunalisation by taking away the powers from the normal courts which was essentially a judicial function and this move of the Legislature impinged upon the impartiality, fairness and reasonableness of the decision making which was the hallmark of judiciary and essentially a judicial function. Argument went to the extent that it amounted to negating the Rule of Law and trampling of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers which was the basic feature of the Constitution of India. What we are emphasising is that the petitions spearheaded the attack on the constitutional validity of both NCLT as well as NCLAT o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at such tribunalisation would adversely affect the independence of judiciary or the standards of judiciary, the court may interfere to preserve the independence and standards of judiciary. Such an exercise will be part of the checks and balances measures to maintain the separation of powers and to prevent any encroachment, intentional or unintentional, by either the legislature or by the executive. 41. By way of Section 430 of the Act, 2013, a company has an existing remedy to approach the NCLT in terms of Section 241 read with Section 244 of the Act, 2013 and consequently, the Tribunal has been given wide powers to pass such orders as it may think fit in terms of Section 242 of the Act, 2013. Chapter XXVII deals with the constitution of the Tribunals. Powers have been given to the Tribunal to 'pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit' in terms of Section 420 of the Act, 2013. Moreover, under Section 424 of the Act, 2013 the Tribunal also has the same powers and functions as are vested with a Civil Court. Section 425 of the Act, 2013 has vested with the Tribunal the power to punish for contempt which was not available with the Company Law Board. In various ways, the N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13 which deals with the effect of company being notified as dissolved. 250. Effect of company notified as dissolved.- Where a company stands dissolved under section 248, it shall on and from the date mentioned in the notice under sub-section (5) of that section cease to operate as a company and the Certificate of Incorporation issued to it shall be deemed to have been cancelled from such date except for the purpose of realising the amount due to the company and for the payment or discharge of the liabilities or obligations of the company. 44. It is also important to refer to the relevant portion of the order dated 24th November 2020 passed by the NCLT, Chandigarh bench by way of which TCL was dissolved: 23. In the result, by exercising powers conferred on the Adjudicating Authority, under Section 54 of the Code, the Interim Application bearing CA No.584/2019 in CP (18) No.SO/Chd/Hry/2017 is disposed of with the following directions: (i) M/s. Tirupati Ceramics Limited, the Corporate Debtor, is hereby dissolved with immediate effect; (ii) The Liquidator is permitted to close the pending Liquidation Bank Account within three weeks from the date of recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
