Anil Rajan Nair vs Hans-Martin Schempp

(Hybrid Mode)

IA No. 1841/2025, where the Appellant has sought a condonation of 23 days of delay, finding the reasons to be satisfied. The delay of 23 days would hereby stand condoned.

The Respondent is the Petitioner in the proceedings of the CP/16l(CHE)/2022. The said company petition was preferred under the strength of a Power of Attorney that was executed abroad.

Under the provisions contained in Section 3C to be read with Section 18 of the Stamp Act, it provides for, that if a Power of Attorney, which has been executed outside the country, if that is to be utilised as a strength to initiate proceedings before a court of law, that is to be stamped in accordance with the said provision of the Stamp Act. Various interlocutory applications, and particularly IA(CA)/84(CHE)/2024 and IA(CA)/151/CHE/2025, came up for consideration before Ld. Tribunal, in which the Ld. Tribunal had passed the impugned order on 17.09.2025, deciding the aforesaid IA, which has been impugned in the instant company.

However, if we see the relief clause as modulated by the Appellant, in the company appeal he has confined his challenge given to the impugned order of 17.09.2025 that was passed on IA(CA)/151/CHE/2025 preferred by the Respondent in CP/16l(CHE)/2022. In the IA(CA)/151/CHE/2025, which has been preferred by the Respondent as a Petitioner. He had prayed for the following reliefs:

In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to:

a. Permit the Applicant / Petitioner/Power of Attorney Holder to take back the original Power of Attorney issued to Mr. G. Saravanan herein filed along with the Company Petition in CP.161/(CHE)/2022 pending before this Hon'ble NCLT, Division Bench - I for the purpose of proper adjudication and stamping as required under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and relevant stamp rules of the State of Tamil Nadu; b. Permit the Applicant to refile the duly adjudicated and stamped Power of Attorney for better adjudication.; c. Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity. In a nutshell the relief prayed for in IA(CA)/151/CHE/2025 was that the Applicant/Petitioner, may be permitted to take back the original Power of Attorney, for the purposes to get it stamped under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the relevant stamp rules of the State of Tamil Nadu.

The consequence of the passing of the order of 17.09.2025, in fact, the permission as sought for in IA(CA)/151/CHE/2025 stood granted. And in compliance thereto, the Appellant has already supplied the stamp duty, as well as, has placed the original Power of Attorney on record. Based on which the proceedings of CP/16l(CHE)/2022 was initiated. Taking compliance of the order dated 17.09.2025, having been followed by the Respondent/Petitioner, the Ld. Tribunal had further proceeded to pass an order on 26.11.2025.

Observing thereof that the pleadings are complete, original Power of Attorney has been submitted, after its due stamping as per the law, and not only that thereafter the arguments too had concluded and written synopses were exchanged between the parties, and by the subsequent order passed by the Ld. Tribunal on 09.01.2026, the arguments have concluded. Judgment was reserved.

In view of the aforesaid development, as a matter of fact, the very purpose of the order passed on 17.09.2025, for enabling the Appellant to supply the stamp on the Power of Attorney has already been exhausted and has been complied with and the proceedings of the company petition has been concluded after reserving of the judgement.

In that eventuality practically, as of now nothing requires to be adjudicated qua IA(CA)/151/CHE/2025, which is subject matter of challenge in the instant company appeal.

Owing to the subsequent developments nothing much material is left to be decided on merits in the instant company appeal, hence, the company appeal is dismissed as having rendered infructuous.