TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t a Company incorporated hardly one and half months earlier, can able to get a Contract from the Govt. of India, that too without having any technical experience in the relevant field. Therefore, without prejudice to the rights of Parties in the litigation pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal can exercise its powers conferred on this Tribunal, under Chapter XX Part 1 of Companies Act, 2013, to appoint provisional Liquidator before passing final winding up order, which would be decided after hearing the Parties. Since the R1 Company has suffered various adverse findings with cogent evidence at the hands of various Statutory Authorities, as detailed supra, it would not be proper to permit R1 Company to continue its name on the rolls of Registrar of Companies, Bangalore. Therefore, in terms of provisions of Section 283 of Companies Act, 2013, it would be just to permit Provisional Liquidator to forthwith take into his or its custody or control all the property, effects and actionable claims to which the R1 Company is or appears to be entitled to and take such steps and measures, as may be necessary, to protect and preser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overnment of India Company under the administrative control of Department of Space (hereinafter also referred to, as 'DOS') and it was incorporated on 28.09.1992 under the Companies Act, 1956. It is the commercial arm of Indian Space Research Organization (hereinafter also referred to as 'ISRO') and it promotes and commercially markets the products and services emanating from the Indian Space Programs. 2.) Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as Respondent No. 1) is a Company incorporated on 17.12.2004, having its registered office at First Floor, 29/1, Kaveriappa Layout, Millers Tank, Bund Road, Bangalore-560052, Karnataka, and registered with the Registrar of Companies, Bangalore under the Companies Act, 1956 with CIN U92132KA2004PTC035261. 3.) It is stated that the then officials' of Antrix Corporation Limited (then officials' to distinguish them from the Petitioner company and hereinafter referred to as the then officials'), including its then Chairman, had executed contract dated 28/01/2005 in favour of the Respondent No. 1 Company, which was ultimately led to its termination by letter dated 25.02.2011, as it was obtained fraud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge of the Delhi High Court held that Application U/s. 9 of the Act filed by SLP petitioner before the Delhi High Court was maintainable. However, the Division Bench of the High Court set-aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge on 30.05.2018, with the result that the proceedings before the City Civil Court, Bangalore would proceed. The Application filed by the Respondent under Section 34 of the Act, stands transferred to the Delhi High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India directed that the issue in question shall be kept in abeyance till the Delhi High Court decides the Application for stay in the Application filed under Section 34 of the Act. The suit pending before City Civil Court was transferred to Delhi HC in terms of Apex court order dated 04.11.2020. 6.) The Respondent No. 1 Company has siphoned away, out of the country, almost the entirety of the foreign investment made in India in the guise of spurious payments to its own subsidiary entities. The genesis and entire objective of the Respondent No. 1 company, the subsequent actions taken by the said company including manipulated/fraudulent FIPB approvals, the fraudulent foreign investments brought into Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid-up capital of the company as ₹ 5 Lakh and ₹ 1 Lakh respectively, divided into 10000 equity shares of ₹ 10 each. It currently stands at ₹ 20% lakh and paid-up share capital at ₹ 18,37,150/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Thirty-Seven Thousand One Hundred and Fifty). The Agreement dated 28.01.2005 was terminated vide letter dated 25.02.2011. b. The R1 Company is suffering various cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Indian Penal Code, 1872, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1997 ('FEMA'), against the individuals/entities concerned, including CMD and Directors of the Respondent No. 1 company. c. The Respondent No. 1 is a private limited Company, started by two individuals, one was a former employee of ISRO and another former employee: of ISRO joined thereafter, as a Director in the Respondent No. 1 Company. Further, the project involved the use of a combination of technologies, i.e., satellite and terrestrial systems, for providing SDMB services. It has now come on record that the technology necessary for providing these services was not even in existence at the time the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctivities. f. The pendency of the various cases before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relates to different subjects and it is not related to issue raised in the instant case. Therefore, the Tribunal is competent to entertain this Petition and can pass appropriate order in the interest of justice. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsels for the Petitioner urged the Tribunal to pass Interim Orders as prayed for. 5. Shri Rajiv Nayar, and Shri Sajjan Poovayya, Learned Senior Counsels for the R1 Company, while accepting notice for the Respondent No. 1 asked for some time to file short reply with reference to interim reliefs as sought by the Petitioner, has inter alia further submitted as follows: a. The proviso under Section 273 (1) of the Companies Act, 2013 mandates that the Tribunal before appointing the Provisional Liquidator under Clause (c) should afford a reasonable opportunity to the Respondent to make its representation, unless for special reasons to be recorded in writing, the Tribunal thinks fit to dispense with such notice . Therefore, they sought short time to file a reply to the Interim reliefs as sought for. b. The c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yed for. 8. So far as, the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to deal with the subject matter is concerned, the Tribunal is conferred with exclusive jurisdiction to deal all matters arise out of provisions of Companies Acts, 1956/2013, as case may be. Section 430 ousts jurisdiction of Civil Court over the matters, the Tribunal is having jurisdiction. In this regard, it is relevant to extract section 430 of Companies Act, 2013, which reads as under: Section 430 'No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, by the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal' Since the instant Petition is filed under U/s. 271 272 of Companies Act, 2013, the Tribunal is having jurisdiction over the subject matter. Though the Parties have approached various judicial forums right from City C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Tribunal, under Chapter XX Part 1 of Companies Act, 2013, to appoint provisional Liquidator before passing final winding up order, which would be decided after hearing the Parties. 11. Since the R1 Company has suffered various adverse findings with cogent evidence at the hands of various Statutory Authorities, as detailed supra, it would not be proper to permit R1 Company to continue its name on the rolls of Registrar of Companies, Bangalore. Therefore, in terms of provisions of Section 283 of Companies Act, 2013, it would be just to permit Provisional Liquidator to forthwith take into his or its custody or control all the property, effects and actionable claims to which the R1 Company is or appears to be entitled to and take such steps and measures, as may be necessary, to protect and preserve the properties of the R1 Company and to avoid misuse of its property. 12. So far as the contentions of the Learned Counsels for the R1 Company, as detailed supra, are concerned, it is settled position of law that principles of natural justice mandates judicial forums to afford reasonable opportunity to other side before passing any order by judicial Authorities. However, Courts/Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
