9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ICE RAKESH KUMAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) The present appeal has been preferred under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 against an order dated 23.02.2022 passed by Learned National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as NCLT) in Misc A. No.1065/KB/2018 in CP No.30/2014. 2. By the said order learned NCLT has issued directions for implementation of order dated 3rd August, 2017 passed by the NCLT in CP No.30/2014. The operative part of the order is quoted hereinbelow:- "25 Heard the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and perused the records. It is pertinent to mention that no appeal was preferred by the Judgment Debtors against the Order dated August 3, 2017. 26. This is an application for u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on or by proxy Attendance at such meetings shall be recorded in the minutes of the meetings. 29. Notice shall be issued to all the shareholders in accordance with section 101 of the Companies Act, 2013. 30. Covid-19 protocols and precautions in terms of directions issued by the Government and other public authorities shall be strictly adhered to at such meeting. Since the AGM could not be held in time due to the non-cooperation on the part of the Judgment Debtor Nos. 2-4, the default in not conducting the AGM within the stipulated time is hereby condoned and the Company and the petitioner being its officer shall not be visited with any adverse consequences in this regard. 31. Leave is granted to the Applicant to make all statutory com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly Respondent No.3/ Teesta Torsa Chemicals Pvt Ltd. The said petition was finally decided in favour of the applicant (Respondent No.1 herein). By an order dated 3rd August, 2017 the learned NCLT while setting aside of the allotment of shares and removal of the applicant/Respondent No.1 herein from the Board of Directors directed the appellant herein to cooperate with the applicant/respondent in operation of bank account and filing statutory compliances of the company in question. It is further evident that since the order passed by the NCLT was not implemented the Respondent No.1 herein filed an application under Section 424(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 for implementation of the order by way of granting following reliefs:- a) A direction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 the appellants herein appeared and filed reply. However, Finally they did not participate in the proceeding before the NCLT. However, finally the learned NCLT allowed the application by its order dated 23.02.2022 which we have already quoted hereinabove. 5. Aggrieved with the impugned order the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants. 6. In appeal it has been reiterated that the impugned order was passed ex-parte against the appellant. It has further been claimed that in a petition filed under Section 424(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, learned NCLT exceeded its jurisdiction in granting reliefs which were more than the reliefs which were granted in the main petition i.e. CP No.30/2014. 7. Ms Malvika Trivedi, learned senior c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order was passed. From the order impugned it is reflected that learned NCLT has considered the submission of all the parties and thereafter impugned order was passed. He further submitted that in the proceeding before the NCLT in Misc A. No.1065/KB/2018 the appellants herein appeared and filed their reply. They participated in the proceeding, however, subsequently to the reasons best known to them at the time of final hearing they did not appear and as such it cannot be inferred that the impugned order was ex parte order. He further submits that in the petition the relief which was sought for was virtually in relation to implementation of order passed on 3rd August, 2017 in CP No.30/2014. In sum and substance it has been argued that in co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppression and mismanagement of a company a final order is passed, it is the duty on the part of the NCLT/Appellate Authority to see implementation of the said order if request is made by the judgement holder. The Respondent No.1 being judgement holder and noticing the fact that even after expiry of the period of limitation the order was not being implemented, he was constrained to file an application under Section 424(3) of the Companies Act which was numbered as Misc A. No.1065/KB/2018. Learned NCLT after considering the submission of both the parties has passed the reasoned order which requires no interference. Moreover, in view of subsequent development which has taken place after the impugned order there is no reason to interfere with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
