TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1037X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Company Petition and allegations made against Respondents Nos. 1 3, particularly relating to the disqualification of applicant and Respondent No.3, I, by exercising the inherent power of the Tribunal under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 and for meeting the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of this Tribunal, decided to Both the parties are directed to suggest names of qualified persons, who may be appointed as an Interim Administrator in the matter to look after the management and affairs of the Respondent No.1 Company - Application allowed. - Interlocutory Application No. 25/KOB/2020 in CP/74/KOB/2019 - - - Dated:- 22-1-2020 - Ashok Kumar Borah , Member ( J ) For the Appellant : Tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rector of the 1st Respondent-Company was removed by the 5th Respondent- Registrar of Companies on the ground that his resignation from the Board of M/s. India Middle East Broadcasting Network Pvt. Ltd was noted by the 5th Respondent- Registrar of Companies as per the DIR-12 form filed on 30-01-2017. 3. The counsel for the applicant submitted that the Statutory defaults for a continuous period of three years has resulted in the disqualification for appointment of the 3rd Respondent under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 on November, 2018 on expiry of the time fixed for filing the financial statement within 30 days from the Annual General Meeting for the year 2017-2018. 4. It was further submitted that as per Clause 25 of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ritten objection for this Interlocutory Application, the Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 appeared before this Tribunal and vehemently opposed the petition stating that this IA/25(KOB)/2020 was filed after a long time from filing of the main Company Petition (i.e., C.P/74/KOB/2019), which is more than 90 days from the date of receipt of the petition for winding up and alternative remedy is also available as per Section 273 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, it should be dismissed in limine. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant has supported the prayer in this application filed by Respondent No. 2. 8. Considering the arguments made by Respondent Nos. 1 and 3, the applicant submitted that though the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) No. 1808 of 2014, Madura Bench of Madras High court, Madurai. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the order dated 10.12.2009, made in C.R.P.PD.(MD) No.2059 of 2009 [P.Seyyammal and Others v. R.Chinnasamy and Others], wherein in paragraph No.6, this Court has held as follows:- 6. I have given my anxious consideration on the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side. As the lower Court has dismissed the E.A. filed by the petitioner without numbering the same, there is no need to issue notice to the respondents. According to me, when the petition is filed, the Court should not go into the merits of the petition and firstly the court must number it, if the petition is otherwise in order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this petition was returned by the Registrar i.e. on 2.11.2004, it was presented before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) on the same day. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that having regard to all these facts they have fail to understand as to how the Appellate Board could dismiss the petition on the ground that it was filed after a delay of 10 years. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, allowed the said appeal, as a consequence the matter is remitted back to IPAB to decide the Rectification Petition on merits. Accordingly, the presentation of the petition before the IPAB on 02.11.2004, was taken as the date of filing of the petition. 10. In the latter case, it was held that only after numbering the case and after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
