TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to all parties to complete their pleadings, to the Appellants herein to file their objections and dispose of the case as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than three months from the date of this Order. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - COMPANY APPEAL (AT) No.152 of 2021 COMPANY APPEAL (AT) No.153 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 4-4-2022 - [Justice Anant Bijay Singh] Member (Judicial) And [Ms Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate with Ms Tuhin Sinha, Mr Pranay Sarkar, Advocates For the Respondent No. 1: Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aditya Bharech, Advocates for R-1 For the Respondent No. 1 in person: Ms. Punita Khatter, R1 in person JUDGEMENT ( Per: Shreesha Merla, Member (T) ) 1. Aggrieved by the Order dated 22/11/2021 passed by NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal, Court No. II, Special Bench, New Delhi) in CA No. 522 of 2021 in CP No. 3(ND)/2016, M/s. Explorers Travels and Tours Private Limited preferred this Appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, (hereinafter referred to as The Act ). The NCLT in the Order Impugned observed as follows: Ld. Counsel for the P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... local Commissioners to inspect and have access to the computers and hard disks used by the first Respondent herein to ascertain whether the Appellants propriety software and database has been downloaded and being used; in this background the first Respondent filed CA No, 522/2021 before the NCLT seeking several directions. As per Prayer (VI) of CA No. 522/2021, the first Respondent sought inspection of all Company data in her capacity as Director for FY 2016-17 being a 35% shareholder. NCLT granted inspection of statutory records of any FY which was not even prayed for by the first Respondent. Moreover, having resigned on 09/06/2016, the first Respondent is now retrospectively seeking inspection of the records to which, only Director is entitled as per Section 128(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. FIRs are pending against the first Respondent, the allegations being that, the first Respondent destroyed the financial records of the Company and removed the records from the Registered Office of the Company and also that she had siphoned off the funds from the Company. NCLT failed to appreciate that the documents sought for by the first Respondent are forming part of the Criminal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... empt Notices to all the contemnors including the Appellant in CP No. 15/2021. No stay was granted thereafter. It is only to wriggle out of the contempt proceedings the Appellant and the majority shareholders are making these feeble attempts to derail the proceedings before the NCLT. Company Appeal (AT) No. 153 of 2021 4. Aggrieved by the same Impugned Order dated 22/11/2021 passed by NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal, Court No. II, Special Bench, New Delhi) in CA No. 522 of 2021 in CP No. 3(ND)/2016, M/s. Global Leisure Recreations Pte Ltd. preferred Company Appeal (AT) No. 153 of 2021 on similar grounds. 5. Submissions of the Appellant: Learned Counsel strenuously contended that the first Respondent was seeking a retrospective inspection of the record in her capacity as a Director for FY 2016-17 though, admittedly, she resigned from the Directorship of the Company on 09/06/2016 itself. NCLT has allowed the Prayer of the inspection in contravention of Section 128(3) of the Act which allows inspection of accounts only by a Director. NCLT granted relief much beyond the Prayer. Similar Applications were preferred and the Bench had refused to entertain the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ors. Vs. I.S. Kavadia Ors. , [1992 (1) WLC 396]. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidy Vs. Jagnnath , [1994 1 SCC 1]. A. Shanmugam Vs. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam , [(2012) 6 SCC 430]. Assessment: 7. A brief perusal of the Impugned Order shows that CA 522/2021 was initially taken up on 22/11/2021, one day prior to the 28th AGM scheduled to be held by the Appellant Company. The Application preferred by the first Respondent came up for the first time on 22/11/2021 and no Notice was issued to the Appellant herein who did not have an opportunity to file their Reply/present their case. It is also seen from the Order dated 03/12/2021 that NCLT issued show cause Notice in the Contempt Petition without issuing any Notice in CA 522/2021. It is also evident from the material on record that the relief(s) sought for in CA 522 of 2021 is similar to the relief(s) sought for in the previous Application filed prior to the scheduled date of AGM. At this juncture, this Tribunal finds it relevant to reproduce the Prayer sought for in CA 522 of 2021: 8. From the aforenoted reliefs sought for by the first Respondent/Applicant it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
