9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e High Court order). Considering the high headed attitude of the Appellants and creating hurdles by initiating false and unwanted litigations against the Respondent No.1 company, its shareholders and also against the buyers of plot of land from the Respondent No. 1 company and its statutory auditors as well, all the shareholders have unanimously passed a resolution to buy out the Appellant s 8% shares under section 236 of the Companies Act, at appropriate value as may be determined by an independent valuer to be appointed by the NCLT. The CP No. 36 of 2018 was filed by the Respondents on 07.03.2018 and further 05.09.2018 in this matter also filed counter petition in the form of an IA against this petition unmbered MA 1 in CP 36 of 2018 on 19.10.2019 and similar voluminous records of 2000 plus pages are placed in MA 1 in CP 36 of 2018. After couple of hearings, the Appellant felt that his exit from the company as shareholder of the company is final with outcome of CP 36 of 2018 and that is why with the sole intention to delay justice in CP 36 of 2018. All these false and frivolous multiple litigations are being created and on the ground of pending this matter, the Appellant keep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /Appellant cannot seek the aid of rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 which speaks of inherent powers. Also, that the Review Applicant cannot seek umbrage under section 420(2) of the Companies Act , 2013 for filing the Review Application on the purported ground of rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, within two years from the date of order passed, in the considered opinion of this Court. 10. Thus, under the facts and circumstances discussed in sequel herein above, the application so filed by the Applicant for recalling of the order dated 23.11.2017, along with other prayers, are not only beyond the jurisdiction of this Tribunal but also bad in the eye of law and is not maintainable. Hence, the instant application is rejected and stands disposed of. 2. The facts giving rise to this Appeal are as follows: i) The Respondent No. 1 company was registered on 30.05.2017 as a private limited company for the business of construction and dealing in real estate, that is, buying, developing and selling of vacant plots as well as constructed houses. The Appellant no. 1 herein was originally holding 50% of the share capital of Respondent No. 1 Company. Subsequently, new ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the Appellants herein and mismanagement of Respondent No. 1 company. Vide order dated 23.11.2017 (at page 619 to 653, Vol.-IV of the Appeal), the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad, dismissed the aforesaid Company Petition. Against the order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad, the Appellants herein filed Company Appeal (AT) No. 13 of 2018 before this Appellate Tribunal and after hearing the parties this Appellate Tribunal dismissed the aforesaid Appeal vide order dated 23.05.2018 (at page 787 to 804, Vol.-V of the Appeal). Thereafter, the Appellants herein filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon ble Supreme Court of India against the order dated 23.05.2018 passed by this Appellate Tribunal. Further, vide its order dated 10.08.2018 in Civil Appeal No. 6869 of 2018 (at page 1025, Vol.- VII of the Appeal), the Hon ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the Appellant. vi) Further case is that based on information received subsequent to filing of the SLP before the Hon ble Supreme Court of India by the Appellants that Respondent No. 1 Company's Directors are disposing of the plots of Respondent No. 1 company without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts based on the evidence of property tax for the so-called unsold plots being paid by third parties to Surat Municipal Corporation and sought time for filing a counter petition/recall application against the Respondents. The NCLT, Ahmedabad gave time for the appellants for the same. ix) Further, the Appellants herein filed the counter petition/recall application i.e. I.A. No. 608 of 2019 in Company Petition No. 68 of 2017 seeking recall of the order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the NCLT on the ground of fraud and suppression of facts by the Respondents in Company Petition No 68 of 2017. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal passed the order impugned (supra) which led to filing of this Appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant during the course of argument and in his memo of appeal along with written submissions submitted that the application for recall of order filed by Appellants is maintainable under Section 151 of CPC due to fraud and concealment of facts by Respondents before entire course of litigation until Hon ble Supreme Court. The adverse findings recorded in paragraphs 27, 30, 34 and 43 of the NCLT order dated 23.11.2017 against Appellant No. 1 clearly shows that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Section 195 of the CRPC, 1973. The said Section 195 deals with filing of forged / false affidavits containing false evidence or false statements before a court of law. 7. Further, Rules 11, 73, 74 77 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 contain provisions to effectuate and enforce the aforementioned provisions in Section 424 by the NCLAT. In other words, the NCLAT is vested with powers identical to the civil court in respect of affidavits filed before it. The final orders of NCLAT are executable like a decree passed by a court of law under the CPC. The Appellant relies upon Judgment passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank Vs. Satyam Fibres India Private Limited (1996) 5 SCC 550 at paragraph 20 wherein it was held that authorities, be they constitutional, statutory or administrative, (and particularly those who have to decide a lis) possess the power to recall their judgments or orders if they are obtained by fraud as fraud and justice never dwell together. Further, in paragraph 32 of the said judgment, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the principles regarding fraud and forgery will apply not only to courts of law but also to statutory tribunals which are conferred pow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther submitted that submissions in this appeal are also not less than perjury. The Appellant claims that he made an RTI application on 14/08/2018 with the Surat Municipal Corporation and he came to know about some facts and filed this petition for revocation of order reached to finality before Hon ble NCLT. However, in Appeal of 12 volumes, the Appellant never produced a copy of the RTI application before the NCLT and this Appellate Tribunal. On raising of this question about copy of RTI application by Respondents in their reply, the Appellant filed so called RTI application in rejoinder to reply at pages 16 and 17 of the Rejoinder. RTI is a very well-known and familiar law to everyone and this Appellate Tribunal also very much aware about the format of an application under RTI and the so called RTI application placed at pages 16 and 17 of the Rejoinder is not an application under RTI hence to make such submissions absolutely contrary to facts and law are not less than perjury and for this reason also Appellant deserves strict punishment and the instant Appeal must be dismissed with exemplary cost. 11. It is admitted that the Appellant has committed fraud with the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
