AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
11.11.2022: Heard Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Ashish Dholakia, ld. Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Rohan Uhawla, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent.
The present appeal has been preferred under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred as to ‘Act’) against an order dated 01.09.2022 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench (hereinafter referred as to ‘NCLT) in CA No. 90/2021 in Company Petition No. 68(ND)/2020.
In the said case, an application i.e. CA No. 90/2021 was filed by R1 who is unfortunately wife of Appellant No.2. It was admitted at bar that divorce proceedings in between Appellant No.2 and Respondent No.1 is still pending and both are ‘Director’ of the Appellant No.1/ Company.
The Respondent No.1 had filed CA No. 90/2021 with a prayer to (i) Direct the Respondent No. 1/ Company to disclose the payments made/ disbursal of salaries made to the Respondent No. 2 in the FY 2020 2021 and disclose the “cost to company” of the Respondent No. 2 including all perquisites) expenses and credit card allowances etc; (ii) Direct the Respondent No. 1 Company to pay the salary dues/ arrears to the Petitioner since the time the Respondent No. 2 has started receiving a salary in terms of disclosures made in prayer no. (i) and place the Petitioner at parity with the Respondent No. 2 in respect of payment of the full salary during the FY 2020-21.; (iii) Direct the Respondent No. 1 Company to pay the salary of Rs. 107,780/ (net after deductions) to the Petitioner from March 2021 on a monthly basis ·
The order impugned reflects that vide order dated 04.05.2020, the Petitioner was restored to the position of ‘Director’ by the Ld. NCLT. However, Ld. Counsel for the parties have agreed that it is an error of record and it is not in dispute that the Respondent No.1 was functioning as ‘Director’ and she was not removed rather proposal was earlier moved for her removal, which was stayed by the Ld. NCLT.
Before the NCLT, a dispute was raised as to whether prior to 04.05.2020, the Respondent No.1 was functioning as ‘Director’ or not. It appears that due to the said reason, the Ld. NCLT by the impugned order instead of passing a specific direction, recorded that if that is so then Respondent Company by virtue of interim order dated 04.05.2020 was entitled to the restoration of remuneration of Rs. 1.07 lakh per month with effect from 04.05.2020. At this juncture, it is apt to reproduce the operative portion of the order impugned as follows:
“Vide order dated 04.05.2020 the petitioner has been restored to the position of director by this Tribunal. Ld. Counsel for the respondent argue, vehemently against the application stating that she has not been working for the respondent company prior to 04.05.2020. However, we· are informed by the petitioners counsel that she has been working as a director of the company prior to 04.05.2020 order and has been drawing a salary of Rs 1.07 Lakh. If that is so; then, we direct the respondent company by virtue of interim order dated 04.05.2020. that she is entitled to the restoration of remuneration of 1.07 Lakh per month w.e.f. 04.05.2020.
Accordingly, this IA-CA-90/2021, is disposed of.”
The aforesaid order has been assailed in the present proceedings. Of course, at the time of hearing of this appeal, number of arguments were advanced by both the Ld. Counsel for the parties, but considering nature of the order, we are of the opinion that at this stage, it would not be appropriate for us to interfere with the impugned order, since the order impugned is conditional. Accordingly, liberty is granted to the parties to approach the Ld. NCLT in the eventuality of any difficulty or confusion.
With above observations, the appeal stands disposed of.