Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + AT Companies Law - 2020 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 296 - AT - Companies LawMaintainability of petition - Oppression and Mismanagement - criteria under Section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013 fulfilled or not - Whether the Joint Petition by three members (Appellants) is maintainable? - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the total number of members of the Respondent No. 1 company are nine. Hence, even Appellant No. 1 being a member i.e. more than one-tenth of the total number of members can maintain the petition under Section 241 of the Act. However, there is no such averment in the petition. Therefore, in the absence of pleading, the petition is not maintainable on this ground. Whether written consent is required to be filed alongwith the Petition? - HELD THAT:- The requirements contained in Regulation 18 of Company Law Board Regulation, 1991 can hardly be said to be mandatory in the sense that non-compliance would ipso facto result in the dismissal of the petition. Thus, we can say that sub-section 2 of Section 244 of the Act only speaks of obtaining of written consent of members. Though Rule 81 of NCLT rules, 2016 provides that the letter of consent signed by the members shall be annexed to the petition, however, non-compliance would not ipso facto result in the dismissal of the petition. We can say that such defect can be cured subsequently by filing of the written consent of members. It is not out of context to refer that Rule, 58 of the National Company Law Tribunal, Rules, 2016 provides that failure to comply with any requirements of these Rules shall not invalidate any proceedings, merely by reason of such failure, unless the Tribunal is of the view that such failure has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Thus, the written consent obtained under Section 244(2) of the Act is not annexed with the Petition as per the Rule 81 of NCLT Rules, 2016. Such non-compliance of this rule shall not invalidate the proceedings. Whether consent should be given by a member personally or power of attorney holder of such member can give consent? - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of BHAGWATI DEVELOPERS (P.) LTD. VERSUS PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD. [2013 (4) TMI 252 - SUPREME COURT] has settled law that is not required that consent should be given by a member personally. Such consent can be given by the Power of Attorney Holder of such member and the consent must be decided on the basis of a broad consensus approach, in relation to the avoidance and subsistence of the case. The same must not be decided on the basis of the form of such consent, rather on the substance of the same. Whether General Power of Attorney of Appellant No. 2 & 3 in favour of Appellant No. 1 is doubtful? - HELD THAT:- Non-filing of written consent ipso facto would not result in dismissal of the petition. The GPA executed and notarized on 04.04.2019 and the petition under Section 241 and 242 of the Act filed on 30.04.2019. There is no finding rendered by the Tribunal that the GPA is back dated or a forged document and the Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are not denying the execution of this document - the GPA cannot be rejected as being a forged one because it was not filed along with the main Company Petition or there was no reference in the petition or reasons for execution have not been assigned. Admittedly, the Respondent No. 1 is a family Company, in which there are total 9 Members. The Appellant No. 1 is the husband of Appellant No. 2 and father of Appellant No. 3. It is pertinent to note that all the Appellants have signed the Vakalatnama accompanied with the petition - it is evident from the Balance Sheet of the Respondent No. 1 Company for the Financial Years 2016- 2017 and 2017-2018 that the Appellants are holding shares 8.93%, 8.10% and 8.52% total 25.55%. Thus, the Appellants hold one-tenth of the total paid up share capital. Therefore, they fulfil the requirement for maintaining the Petition as stipulated under Section 244 (1) of the Act. The Joint Petition of the Appellants is fulfilled the requirement under Section 244(1) of the Act. Thus, the Petition is maintainable and impugned order passed by the Learned Tribunal is not sustainable in law - Appeal allowed.
|