Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2020 (9) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 1152 - ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY, NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABADMaintainability of application - it is submitted that the application so filed by the applicant is not a corporate applicant in view of the fact that the Director has already been disqualified under Section 164 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- As per the record of financial creditor Central Bank of India, there are five directors. However, subsequently, when it is verified with the MCA portal it is found that the pattern and status of the Directors have been changed and the same was never been informed to the financial creditors viz. CBI. Further, Ms. Neelu Gupta was never been a Director on the Board of the applicant company and as such she cannot execute SPA in favour of Mr. Sanjay Gupta. Further, on perusal of the record it is found that no Board Resolution is ever passed by the company authorising Mr. Sanjay Gupta to file the instant application. Further, on perusal of the record it appears that Mr. Sanjay Gupta obtained Special Power of Attorney in his favour issued by Ms. Neelu Gupta flouting all the norms of the Companies Act thereby the very power given in favour of Mr. Sanjay Gupta is bad in the eye of law and as such the application is not maintainable for want of proper authorisation. Admittedly, as also matter of record that, the applicant is not a corporate applicant as per form 6, Clause 3, the applicant is not a director and is disqualified under Section 164, wherein the name and address of the Director is shown as "presently, there is no Director on the Board of the Company due to disqualification under Section 164 of the Companies Act 2013". However, clause 3 of form 6 further discloses that the list of promoters along with their address attached. On perusal of the record i.e. balance sheet as on 31.03.2016 (page 254) it is found that under the head "deferred tax liability" an amount of ₹ 10,34,37,089/- has been shown thereby meaning that no returns have been filed by the company. It is also a matter of record that objector banks have already initiated proceedings under RDDB Act, 1993 and SARFAESSI Act, 2002 and to install the said proceedings, the applicant has filed the instant application, so as to initiate moratorium and to get stayed the proceedings initiated by the banks. Under such circumstances, the instant application has no merits and, therefore, requires to be dismissed. Petition dismissed.
|