TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Respondent No.2 has been serving as a Judicial Member of the District and State Consumer Forums and has been a Judicial Member of the NCRDC since 2015 - It needs no emphasis that the recommendations of the Search-cum-Selection Committee were duly approved by none other than the Appointments Committee of Cabinet and needless to state, there are no allegations of bias or malafides against any Member of the ACC. In our view, therefore, no grounds have been made out by the Petitioner to interfere in the selection and appointment of Respondent No.2. The order passed by Regional Director (Southern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, on 17.08.2018 clearly reveals that the license of the Petitioner Company as a Section 8 Company has been cancelled and the Petitioner is legally debarred from using the name India Awake for Transparency , by which name the present petition has been filed - the Petitioner not only lacks the locus to file the present petition, but has also deliberately concealed and suppressed the aforementioned crucial facts, which have been brought to our knowledge by Respondent No.1 and the intervener. This writ petition along with all the pending application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India, (2015) 8 SCC 583 and provisions of Section 411(3) were specifically struck down. NCLT and NCLAT were brought into existence vide Notification dated 01.06.2016 and after the Company Law Board was wound up, most of the cases pending in the High Courts were transferred to NCLT with provision of appeal before NCLAT. On 12.01.2017, a Notification was issued by Respondent No.1 for appointment of Technical Member, noting the decision of the Supreme Court in Madras Bar Association (supra) and the qualifications were amended, excluding the experience in law . Subsequent thereto, on 01.06.2017, the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 2017 ) were notified which inter alia included in Eighth Schedule the earlier provisions of Section 411(3), which were struck down. On 21.08.2017, relying on the Tribunal Rules, Respondent No.1 modified the Notification dated 12.01.2017 and the revised eligibility criteria once again included experience of not less than 25 years in law. 3. Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017 was notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection was passed, which have been detailed in the counter affidavit. On 22.02.2018, Hon ble Supreme Court clarified that selection process for NCLAT shall continue and not be affected by the interim directions dated 09.02.2018. Vide judgment dated 25.01.2019 in Swiss Ribbons (P) Ltd. and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors., (2019) 4 SCC 17 , Hon ble Supreme Court directed Union of India to set up Circuit Benches of NCLAT, within a period of six months. On 03.04.2019, the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) approved the proposal for appointment against 02 posts of the Technical Members in NCLAT and pursuant thereto on 10.05.2019, Respondent No.1 advertised for filling up of 04 posts of Technical Members and 03 of Judicial Members. An interim Search-cum-Selection Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Hon ble Judge of the Hon ble Supreme Court to recommend names and the recommendations were submitted for consideration by the ACC; the ACC finally approved the appointments of 03 Judicial and 03 Technical Members in NCLAT, on 15.10.2019. On 20.01.2020, the ACC approved the appointment of Respondent No.2 herein as Technical Member against the remaining one vacancy. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial and 3 Technical Members for appointments in NCLAT on 15.10.2019. 26. That requests were made to Department of Personnel and Training to approve one name for remaining vacancy of one technical member from the already sent panel, and accordingly on 20.01.2020 the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet approved the appointment of Ms. Shreesha Meral as Technical Member in NCLAT. 28. It is humbly submitted that Respondents/Technical Members against whom this petition is filed is having adjudicatory experience or legal knowledge. It is reiterated that all steps in the selection process are as per existing rules, law and directions of the Supreme Court only. 7. Without prejudice to the above, learned Additional Solicitor General questions the locus of the Petitioner to file the present petition. At the outset, attention of the Court is drawn to page 204 of the paper book to point out that the status of the Petitioner Company is inactive as reflected in the MCA portal and, therefore, what follows is that there is no entity by the name of India Awake for Transparency . It is submitted that Petitioner s license as a Company under Section 8 of the Act has been cancelled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsumer Forums and has been a Judicial Member of the NCRDC since 2015. Assessment of qualifications, experience, etc. as eligibility conditions of a candidate is purely the domain of the Executive and the Selection Committees. Petitioner has been unable to make out a case, which would lead to a conclusion that Respondent No.2 did not fulfil the eligibility criteria for selection. It needs no emphasis that the recommendations of the Search-cum-Selection Committee were duly approved by none other than the Appointments Committee of Cabinet and needless to state, there are no allegations of bias or malafides against any Member of the ACC. In our view, therefore, no grounds have been made out by the Petitioner to interfere in the selection and appointment of Respondent No.2. 9. As far as the locus standi of the Petitioner is concerned, we find merit in the contentions raised by learned Additional Solicitor General. The order passed by Regional Director (Southern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, on 17.08.2018 clearly reveals that the license of the Petitioner Company as a Section 8 Company has been cancelled and the Petitioner is legally debarred from using the name India Awak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bramanian was a practicing advocate before various Company Law Tribunals, he might interfere with the investigations pertaining to shell companies after which the ED would not be able to trace the whereabouts of the money. During the hearing, a counsel for Vishwapriya Investor Welfare Association represented that retirement benefit of 680 investors to the tune of ₹ 150 crore were also stuck with Vishwapriya India Limited, a company floated by Mr. R. Subramanian. The Court observed that This is a case where not only financial institutions of the country have been affected but innocent and gullible investors have also been affected by financial jugglery . 25. In the light of the above, and in exercise of power granted under Section 8(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, I deem it appropriate to revoke/cancel the license issued to the Respondent Company vide License No.102249 dated 22nd June, 2012 with immediate effect and the Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, Chennai is hereby directed to upload this order into the portal of the Respondent Company and direct the company to convert itself into a Non-Section 8 Company within 30 days as well as obtain change of name from the Reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
