9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1009X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who were the Opposite Parties to the proceedings were engaging themselves in an act of Oppression and Mismanagement and particularly it was stated that they had initiated the proceedings in a fashion to override the Arbitration Clause, as it was agreed between the Parties in their Subscription and Shareholders Agreement of 21st July 2014. 2. The Appellant contended that, the entire proceedings in the Transfer Company Petition No.124/241/AMR/TP/2019 [Company Petition No.486/241/HDB/2018] was coloured in a manner to override the agreed Arbitration Clause between the parties which had constituted to be a part and parcel of the Subscription and Shareholder Agreement as contained under Class 33.2 that, in an event of there being any dispute between the parties, they would be resorting to a Dispute Redressal Forum as agreed between the parties, as contained under Clause 33.3. 3. The Company Petition thus preferred by the Respondent, was accompanied with an application for grant of Interim Protection, during the pendency of the Company Petition itself. The Appellants/Respondents in Company Petition had appeared before the National Company Law Tribunal, Amravati Bench on 10.10.2018, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bjection where they have not raised the preliminary plea about maintainability due to the bar of Arbitration Clause contained under Clause 33.3 in the Shareholders Agreement dated 21st July 2014, the objection was from the perspective that the Proceedings would be barred under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 7. It is an admitted case, that the Appellants for the first time had raised an objection in context of the plea contained under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by filing an objection to that effect on 9th of January 2019, which was numbered as I.A.No.65/2019 wherein they have prayed for, that the proceedings of the Company Petition, being Company Petition No.486/241/HDB/2018, should be dropped. The said Application was opposed by the Respondents/Petitioners by filing an objection to the I.A. No.65/2019 on the ground that, (i) in the absence of the Original Shareholder Agreement, being placed on record, the I.A. No.65/2019, as preferred by the Appellants would not be maintainable. (ii) They had further submitted that, the Shareholders Agreement, since not being a registered document, cannot be derived, as to be the basis fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d raising of a bar in any proceedings, which are drawn before the Court/Tribunal or any Judicial Platform. The basic intention of Section 8, was that, as soon as the factum of initiation of a proceeding in a Court or a forum is brought to the knowledge of the Opposite Party, which is other than the agreed Forum as per the terms of the Agreement, the Opposite Party i.e. the Appellant herein was supposed to raise an objection regards the sustainability of the Proceedings, forthwith by filing of an Application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, and not after entering into the proceedings before NCLT on merits, by exchange of pleadings. 11. Apparently, the Appellant/Opposite Party upon being noticed in the Proceedings of the Company Petition did have an opportunity to raise an objection about maintainability on 10.10.2018, when they have filed an objection to the Interim Relief Application, but for the reasons best known to the Appellant, they have not raised any such objection in context of the provisions contained under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, while opposing the grant of Interim Relief in the Company Petition while raisin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n under Sub Section 1 of Section 8 is "Not later than the date of submitting his first Statement on the Substance of Dispute". Since in the instant case, the Appellants/Opposite Parties, has already filed an objection to the Interim Relief Application, which in its material content was an objection to the principle claim raised and since the same has been filed on 10.10.2018, the said cut-off date would be taken as to be the 'first available opportunity' to the Appellant to raise an objection with regards to Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Having not done so, the application under Section 8 would not be maintainable and the reason being that, Sub-Section 1 of Section 8 itself creates a restriction that no such Application would be maintainable, if it is applied for at a stage later than the submission of the first expression of objection to the proceedings before a Judicial Authority. Here in the instant case, since the application itself i.e. IA/65/2019, was filed on 9th January 2019, that would be amounting to that the Appellants have chosen to first venture into the proceedings of the Company Petition on its merits by filing an objection without raising ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 8 of the Act of 1996, was preferred by the Appellant, it ought to have been accompanied with the certified copy of the agreement at the stage, when the initial objection of 10th October 2018 was filed by the Appellant/Respondent, in opposition to the Company Petition. In that view of the matter and for the said reasons, the "authenticated copy" cannot be treated as to be a "certified copy", which could have been read in evidence under Section 47 of the Registration Act for the purposes to satisfy the restrictions imposed by Sub-Section (2) of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. When the Legislature has specifically used the word "the Original Copy" as an alternative to "the Certified Copy" it meant that the socalled Arbitration Agreement which has been derived, to oppose the proceedings of the Company Petition, the same was required to have been filed in original. That was not done. Consequently, taking that as to be a reason for nonsustainability of Application IA No.65/2019, the Application stood rejected. If we critically analyse the provisions contained under Sub Section 2 of Section 8 of the Act, 1996, the Law in its quite specific terms has observ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or double of an original writing" and in Judicial Dictionary by Alyear's Eleventh Edition, the word 'copy' is defined as: "A transcript of an original document" There, thus, could be no doubt that the ordinary dictionary meaning of the word "copy" is a reproduction or transcription of an original writing. Learned State counsel submitted that the dictionary cannot be taken aid for finding out the meaning of the word "copy" as dictionaries are not dictators of statutory construction. Krishna Iyer, J. in State Bank of India v. N. S. Money, AIR 1976 SC 1111 [LNIND 1976 SC 13] : ( 1976 Lab IC 769 [LNIND 1976 SC 13]) (Para 8 at page,1114) while propounding the said principle stated that dictionaries are not dictators of statutory-construction where the benignant mood of a law and, more emphatically, the definition clause furnish a different denotation. Here there is no definition clause defining the word "copy" and in such a circumstance reference to dictionary is imperative. Section does not in terms, require a certified copy, it is urged on behalf of the appellant that the word "copy" with reference to a document has only one ordinary meaning, namely, a plain copy and the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is proviso under Sub-Section (2) which says that where a sentence of death is passed or confirmed by the High Court, a certified copy of the judgment shall be immediately given to the accused free of cost whether or not he applied for the same. The Court in such a case shall inform the accused of the period within which, if he wishes to appeal, his appeal should be preferred. Sub-Section (6) also provides that the High Court may, by rules, provide for the grant of copies of any Judgment or order of a criminal Court to any person who is not affected by a judgment or order, on payment, by such person, of such fees and subject to such conditions as the High Court may, by such rules, provide. Here the appeal is not by a stranger. Sub-Section (2) provides for delivery of a certified copy of the judgment on an application being made for the purpose by the accused. So far as the right of the accused is concerned, he is under a disability as his freedom is curtailed. If the accused is sentenced to imprisonment at that time it is necessary to supply him a copy of the judgment immediately on pronouncement of the judgment so to enable him, in case he chooses to do so, for filing the appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obtained privately. (ii) Authenticated copy. (iii) Certified copy. The copy which is obtained privately under the law has no relevance. Authenticated copy. is a copy which is given to the accused free of cost and it has got value and that, in essence, is the copy duly authenticated and the accused can file appeal on the basis of it. Certified copy is the copy which is made available on application being made to the concerned authority and it required certain formalities and also contains a certificate that when the copy was applied for, when the same was got ready for delivery and when it was actually delivered. It is for the purpose that in case limitation is expiring then the person may have aid of Section 12 of the Limitation Act. It may also be noticed that the Parliament while enacting the Code was having knowledge of the decision of Supreme Court on Section 419and if it had its different intention then the interpretation given by Supreme Court in the case State of U. P. v. C. Tobit (supra), then it could have defined the word "copy" instead of maintaining same phraseology. Taking all the relevant facts into consideration, namely, that a "copy" of the judgment has to be filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat would be the 'certified copy'. The same is extracted hereunder: 138. "It is, no doubt, true that under the Scheme, an applicant can produce, either the original or the certified copy. What is a certified copy? A certified copy is to be understood in the light of Section 76 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as "the Evidence Act" for short). It reads as follows: "76. Certified copies of public documents.-Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies. Explanation.-Any officer who, by the ordinary course of official duty, is authorized to deliver such copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
