9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1057X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the issues which has already been raised by the Appellant and rejected. Appellant has given much emphasis on non-decision of CA-88/2023 and CA-34/2024 inspite of order of this Tribunal passed on 10.08.2023 and 11.01.2024. As noticed above, on 10.08.2023, this Tribunal has observed that in view of the fact that application has been filed under Section 218 of the Companies Act, the Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of the application at an early date. Subsequently, another IA was filed being IA No.194 of 2024, which was disposed of by this Tribunal by order dated 11.01.2024. The Court who is in control of the proceedings has right to conduct the proceedings in orderly manner and resist attempt of the litigants who tend to raise repeatedly unconnected issues. In the present case it is noticed that the Appellant has been making submissions time and again with regard to CA-88/2023 and CA-34/2024 with regard to entitlement of protection under Section 218 of the Companies Act. Appellant very conveniently in entire appeal has not referred to earlier order of the NCLT dated 25.03.2021 where application under Section 218 was filed and in which no relief was granted of setting aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant dated 04.08.2020 as null and void and that his removal from the company being in violation of the contract in between him and the Club, and having happened during the pendency of the Company Petition, he may be reinstated. NCLT vide order dated 25.03.2021 did not grant the prayers as made in the application. NCLT held that the removal of the Applicant is not hit by Section 218(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013. NCLT, however, observed that notwithstanding the removal of the applicant by the earlier management, the applicant is at liberty to approach the administrator for employment. In the Appeal which was filed before the NCLAT against interim order dated 26.06.2020, NCLAT on 15.02.2021 passed order directing suspension of the GC from the management and directing to nominate Administrator by the Union of India to manage the affairs of the Club, pending disposal of the main Company Petition. (vi) Appellant aggrieved by order dated 25.03.2021 rejecting CA- 409/2020 filed an appeal being Company Appeal (AT) No. 48 of 2021, which was dismissed by this Tribunal. This Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 15.04.2021 granting liberty to the Appellant to participate in the selection pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... One CA-440/2022 was also listed before the Tribunal where the Applicant has prayed for recall of all orders subsequent to order dated 24.04.2020 passed in CP No.71/241-242/PB/2020. CA- 440/2022 was pressed by the Appellant and was heard on several dates. On 15.12.2023, NCLT dismissed application CA-440/2022 and imposed cost of Rs.50,000/- on the Appellant. Appellant did not deposit the cost and made an application for extension of time to deposit the cost, which application came to be dismissed vide order dated 15.02.2024. (xii) Order dated 15.02.2024 was recalled by the Tribunal Suo-moto and matter was fixed for 22.02.2024. When the matter came for hearing on 22.02.2024, the Registry of the Tribunal brought before the Court email dated 18.02.2024 sent by the Appellant to the Registrar of the NCLT which contain serious allegations. The Tribunal at the time of hearing of the applications including hearing of CA-88/2023 and CA-34/2024 brought in the notice of the counsel for the Appellant email dated 18.02.2024 sent by the Appellant. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant also stated that certain averments made in email dated 18.02.2024 are not in good taste and Appellant shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted in the Annual General Meeting of the Club and syphoning of the funds of more than Rs.50 Crores, which allegations have not been considered. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 submits that the Appellant in the appeal has concealed relevant facts and orders passed by this Tribunal and NCLT. Appellant s application which was filed earlier being CA-409/2020 was already heard and dismissed by the NCLT refusing the relief to the Appellant against termination of his services as Secretary of the Club which order has been affirmed by this Tribunal as well as by the Hon ble Supreme Court. Appellant in the appeal has not brought the said orders on record by which application under Section 218 of the Companies Act was also dismissed being CA-409/2020. It is submitted that the Appellant has filed several frivolous applications before the Tribunal wasting precious time of the Court. Appellant has been raising unsustainable allegations against each and every one. Appellant has been raising issues unconnected with his applications. Court has rightly made stringent observations about the conduct of the Appellant. Appellant does not deserve any hearing and the Tribunal has rightly adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tection under section-218 of CA-2013 being arrayed serving Secretary R-18 in CA(AT)-93/22. b. Pass orders on reliefs sought in CA-364/22 and CA387/22 as Petitioner Ministry has not opposed any Prayers in them, post undertakings since 01 22.12.2022 and illegal R-1 reply by Mr Hora has Perjury and was filed without GC approval or resolution. c. Direct SFIO investigation into rejected AGMs of 30.12.2022 and prosecution of R-1 under section 99 and 447 of CA-2013. d. Upload order of 31.01.2023 that had directed for reply to affidavit filed on orders of this Ld. NCLT. 11. In CA-88/2023, prayers b and c have been withdrawn as not pressed on 15.02.2024 and an endorsement with regard to the same has been made by Mr. Ashish Khanna in the Petition. 10. The prayer made in CA-34/2024 has been extracted by the Tribunal in Para 9 of the order, which is as follows: 9. The prayer made in CA-34/2024 reads as follows:- a. Pass appropriate orders under Section 218 of CA- 2013 on the date of listing of this application to protect applicant from any backlash for having assisted Petitioner (UOI) in unearthing the illegalities in Respondent No. 1, read with the decision of the Hon ble Cabinet Minister con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company, other body corporate or person concerned may proceed to take against the employee, the action proposed. (3) If the company, other body corporate or person concerned is dissatisfied with the objection raised by the Tribunal, it may, within a period of thirty days of the receipt of the notice of the objection, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal in such manner and on payment of such fees as may be prescribed. (4) The decision of the Appellate Tribunal on such appeal shall be final and binding on the Tribunal and on the company, other body corporate or person concerned. (5) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the provisions of this section shall have effect without prejudice to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. 13. The Respondent No.1 during his submission as well as in the Written Submissions has stated that the Appellant has concealed relevant orders in his appeal which relates to the same subject of which CA-88/2023 and CA- 34/2024 are concerned. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that Appellant has filed the application for protection under Section 218 being CA- 409/2020, which was heard and decided by the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interlocutory application in the appeal pending before the Hon'ble NCLAT seeking stay of Agenda-13 in the meeting of GC held on 20.07.2020. As soon as he filed interlocutory application, on 27.07.2020, GC issued show- cause notice to the applicant to show cause why action should not be taken against applicant for allegedly being disrespectful, rude and wrongly admitting past violations of the law by the Club. A legal notice dated 30.07.2020 was sent to the applicant. For show-cause notice being issued, the applicant replied to it asking the club to supply information including the minutes of GC dated 20.07.2020, but no information was furnished to the applicant. In the meanwhile, on 04.08.2020 the Executive Manager of the Club issued a notice to GC Members to discuss on the show cause notice and the interim reply, the outcome of the said meeting was, an email at 7.44 PM on 04.08.2020 came to the applicant informing him that his services as CEO were terminated from 04.08.2020. As he was removed from the services, the relief of stay sought in the application the applicant moved before Honourable NCLAT became infructuous, therefore the applicant counsel sought for withdrawal of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not become an impediment to approach the present management. When orders u/s 242 are in force, especially when administrator is appointed to administer the affairs of the company, we believe that this Bench has discretion to pass further orders to ensure that the company is run well under the supervision of the Administrator. Since the administrator is new to the Club affairs, for this applicant already having hands-on experience in relation to the affairs of the Club, depending upon the need of the Club, the administrator is at liberty to consider if the applicant approaches for employment. Accordingly, this application is hereby disposed of. 15. The above order clearly held that the Appellant was not entitled to benefit of protection under Section 218(1)(b) and removal of Appellant was not interfered with liberty to the Appellant to approach the Administrator for employment. This order was challenged by the Appellant in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.48 of 2021, where objection was raised that the Appellant cannot claim any relief since his appointment period of three years from 12.04.2018 has come to an end. The Appeal was dismissed with liberty to the Appellant to participate i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a subsequent order dated 11.03.2022 in Miscellaneous Application has held that the first para of the order dated 13.12.2021 has to be read as provided in order dated 11.03.2022. The entire order of the Hon ble Supreme Court dated 11.03.2022 is as follows: ORDER The first paragraph of order dated 03.12.2021 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2856 of 2021, reads as follows: The grievance of the appellant, is that, because of the observation made by the National Company Law Tribunal (for short, NCLT ) in its order dated 25.03.2021 in paragraph 10, an impression is created that the appellant is guilty and, therefore, Section 218 of the Companies Act, 2013 (for short, the Act ) cannot be invoked. Section 218 of the Act does not make such distinction. It refers to employees of the company. In any case, it is not necessary to dilate on this aspect any further as the appellant was appointed in terms of letter dated 12.04.2018 on the terms and conditions referred to therein including for a term of three years only. That period has elapsed. The same be now read as under: The grievance of the appellant, that the observation made by the National Company Law Tribunal (for short NCLT ) giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy been pronounced by the NCLT, which order has not been interfered with by this Tribunal or the Hon ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that subsequent applications CA-88/2023 and CA-34/2024 are nothing but re- agitation of the issues which has already been raised by the Appellant and rejected. Appellant has given much emphasis on non-decision of CA-88/2023 and CA-34/2024 inspite of order of this Tribunal passed on 10.08.2023 and 11.01.2024. As noticed above, on 10.08.2023, this Tribunal has observed that in view of the fact that application has been filed under Section 218 of the Companies Act, the Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of the application at an early date. Subsequently, another IA was filed being IA No.194 of 2024, which was disposed of by this Tribunal by order dated 11.01.2024. The order of this Tribunal dated 10.08.2023 as well as 11.01.2024 has been extracted in the impugned order, Para 18, which is as follows: 18. The Hon'ble NCLAT passed the following order on 11.01.2024: 11.01.2024: IA. No. 194 of 2024:- This is an application filed by the appellant in Company Appeal (AT) No. 112 of 2023 which was disposed of by our order dated 10.08.2023. On 10.08.2023 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to or placed. This Tribunal taking the view that application for protection being pending the same need to be decided early issued direction. Appellant in his submission has referred to Rule 121 and Rule 150 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 submitting that the impugned order has been passed in violation these rules. Rule 121 deals with restrictions on appearance. Rule 121 is as follows: 121. Restrictions on appearance . A legal practitioner or the authorised representative as the case may be, who has tendered advice in connection with the institution of any case or other proceeding before the Tribunal or has drawn pleadings in connection with any such matter or has during the progress of any such matter acted for a party, shall not, appear in such case or proceeding or other matter arising therefrom or in any matter connected therewith for any person whose interest is opposed to that of his former client, except with the prior permission of the Tribunal. 21. Both during the submission as well as in the Written Submissions the Appellant has referred to Rule 121 and alleged its violation but we do not find any foundation in the appeal on basis of which breach of Rule 121 can be found. Now we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. We, thus, are not able to accept the submission of the Appellant that order dated 05.04.2024 having been delivered in breach of Rule 150 Sub-rule (1) deserve to be set aside. 24. It is relevant to notice that Application IA No. 88 of 2023 and IA No.34 of 2024 have not been finally decided and they have been adjourned to 03.10.2024. Rule 150 of the NCLT Rules contemplate pronouncement of the order after final hearing of the application. IA No. 88 of 2023 and IA No.34 of 2024 having not yet been finally heard, Rule 150 in strict sense is not even attracted. 25. As noted above, the Appellant appearing in person has advanced sub missions that inspite of order dated 10.08.2023 and 11.01.2024, the NCLT did not decide the application on merits. The Tribunal in the impugned order has quoted order dated 10.08.2023 and 11.01.2024 passed by this Tribunal and in fact, has quoted both the order in extenso. The Tribunal noted in the order that Appellant in the company petition i.e. CP No.71/241-242/PB/2020 had filed 20 applications out of which several of the applications has been disposed of and several applications have been pending. In Para 16 of the order, the Tribunal has noted various a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (UOI) in unearthing the illegalities in Respondent No. 1, read with the decision of the Hon'ble Cabinet Minister conveyed vide order dated 20-09-2022. b) Interim relief(s): i) Direct on the date of listing the present application that the Respondent No. 1 reappoint Secretary. applicant as ii) Set down this application for day-to-day hearing till its disposal in compliance with the order dated 10-08-2023 and 11.01.2024 passed by the Hon'ble NCLAT. c) Pass ex parte orders as prayed. d) Pass any other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice; PENDING 26. The Tribunal has further noticed that one of the application which was filed by the Appellant is CA-440/2022 in which Appellant was praying for recall of the order. It has been noted by the Tribunal that the stand taken by the Appellant was that if CA-440/2022 is decided then the entire case will have to be recalled and everything will come back to square one. Hence, the Appellant has pursued rigorously CA-440/2022 which has been noticed in Para 13 and 14 of the order. In para 12, the Tribunal has also noticed the various dates atleast 12 dates on which CA-88/2023 was heard. Para 13, 14 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the application was rejected. The application was rejected by imposing cost of Rs.50,000/- on the Appellant which cost was not paid till February, 2024 when the application was filed by the Appellant for extension of time to deposit the cost. In the above fact and circumstances, we do not find any reason to come to the conclusion that the Tribunal has ignored order of this Tribunal dated 10.08.2023 and 11.01.2024 but for the reason as indicated in the order, application could not be decided. 28. One more fact which need to be noticed, which is the reason for the Tribunal to further adjourn the application to 03.10.2024. The Tribunal in the impugned order has noticed that an email dated 16.02.2024 has been sent by the Appellant to the Registry where serious allegations have been made against various parties and Registry, which email was brought into the notice of learned counsel for the Appellant during hearing on 22.02.2024. The email has been noticed by the Tribunal in Para 23, 24 25, which is as follows: 23. The Registrar was on leave on 17, 18, 20 21 February and has placed this Email of Mr. Ashish Khanna dated 16.02.2024 at 04:22:18 PM before the Hon ble President on 21.02. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anding inter- personal dispute between the Appellant and Gaurav Liberhan, which Appellant has raised before the Tribunal time and again, particularly in multiple emails which does not concern the Tribunal in any way. The Tribunal has rightly observed that if Mr. Ashish Khanna has a personal grievance against Mr. Gaurav Liberhan, he has to vent it out in any other forum or pursue any proceeding against such person outside the NCLT forum. Para 35 of the impugned order is as follows: 35. Be that as it may, on 15.02.2024, when Mr. Deepak Khosla was arguing, Mr. Gaurav Liberhan attempted to rise from his chair and there was a remark by Mr. Deepak Khosla and at the instance of the Bench, Mr. Gaurav Liberhan resumed the seat. He did not utter a single word in this matter. Therefore, the issue raised by Mr. Ashish Khanna about the interference of Mr. Gaurav Liberhan in the proceedings is totally unjustified and is not correct. The objection raised by Mr. Ashish Khanna and by his counsel Mr. Deepak Khosla against the appearance of Mr. Gaurav Liberhan when he was not participating in the proceedings appears to be an unwanted issue raised disturbing the normal proceedings of this Tribunal. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal also has noticed the email dated 16.02.2024 in Para 38, 39 and 40. It is noted that when the Tribunal drew attention of learned counsel for the Appellant to the email, he also made statement before the Court that email is not in good taste. It is useful to extract Para 38, 39 40 of the impugned order, which is as follows: 38. Since the email dated 16.02.2024 speaks about the conduct of the Court proceedings, raises issue on the court proceedings as if the administration justice is being affected and therefore, enquiry should be ordered appears to be an intimidation tactic adopted by Mr. Ashish Khanna since CA 440/2020 did not go in his favour and cost was imposed. Hence, we asked Mr. Deepak Khosla, Ld. Counsel for Mr. Ashish Khanna to go through the email sent by Mr. Ashish Khanna and give his response in our proceeding i.e. 22.02.2024. 39. In response, Mr. Deepak Khosla stated that he has cautioned his client that the statement made in para 1 of the email dated 16.02.2024 is not in good taste and he should rethink on the same and he should tender his apology. 40. Similarly, Mr. Deepak Khosla stated that what is stated in paragraph 3 of the email dated 16.02.2024 is also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Para 49 and 50 following has been observed: 49. Incidentally, in the course of proceedings he raised certain issues about the threat to the Security of Hon ble Prime Minister and that we should take notice of that. We informed him that this is an Adjudicating Tribunal and if he wants to highlight this he should give to the proper Authority, who can take proper note of his complaint. We leave it to that. These kind of comments and issues are raised time and again. 50. But we find that Mr. Ashish Khanna is trying to raise issues which cannot be heard and decided by this Tribunal in many ways. However, we refrain from making any further comment as we are inclined to take up this application at a later point of time so that the valuable time of this Tribunal is not wasted in this sort of e-mail allegation at random. He is yet to give his apology after consulting his advocate. 34. When we look in to the impugned order of the Tribunal, it is clear that anguish of the Court with regard to filing of multiple applications by the Appellant is writ large. The Appellant herein has submitted in his Written Submission that even if entire order is not set aside, Para 37-49 be struck off. Observat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
