AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
08.11.2023: This appeal is filed by a third party to the litigation. He has prayed only for expunging certain remarks recorded by the tribunal against him.
In brief, petition CP No. 48 of 2021, came to be filed by as many as four petitioners under Section 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013 (for short the Act) against as many as 8 Respondents. The petition was dismissed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad vide its order dated 31.05.2022, however, during the course of discussion in the impugned order, certain remarks have been made which are against the present appellant who was not a party to the said litigation. The appellant has thus raised a grievance that these remarks, made behind his back, should be expunged. He has highlighted the remarks in his grounds of appeal in paragraph 7 of sub paragraph (iii) page 13 which reads as under:
(iii)The Hon'ble NCLT while determining the truth of the allegations of the original petitioners and respondents made the following adverse and unwarranted observations on the conduct of a person not a party to the petition le., the Appellant herein
a. At page 33 of the impugned order, while examining the attendance of the directors at the board meetings of the company in 2012-13, the Hon'ble NCLT remarked as follows:
“...It is pertinent to note that Dr. Pruthvinath, son of Respondent No. 2 always attended the Board Meetings and General Meetings and he has been completely aware of the proceedings."
b. At page 36 of the impugned order, the NCLT placed reliance on the aspersions cast by the respondents therein against the Appellant herein and commented as follows:
“As stated supra in the counter filed by Respondent No. 2. Dr. K. Pruthvinath, who is the son of the Respondent No. 2 is a serial litigant and has previously used extortion tactics against his own parents. In the year 2018, Dr. K. Pruthvinath had filed CP No. 479/2018 against some of the persons including the Petitioners under Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013 in order to damage the operations of the 1st Respondent Company and to unjustly enrich his father-in-law."
c. At page 44 of the impugned order, after deciding that the CP was time barred and
“…Since on all the counts petitioners failed miserably to put forth their case, the only conclusion that can be deduced is that the son, Dr. Pruthvinath under the influence of some unscrupulous elements tried to destroy the reputation and smooth going business of the Respondent No. 1 company. Therefore, having violated the customary values of the family, the son and daughter ventured into something that would set a very bad precedent for any children in future...”
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 6 (contesting Respondent) has submitted that since the main petition has been dismissed, he has no objection if this appeal is allowed and the remarks are expunged.
In view of his statement, the present appeal is hereby allowed and the remarks refer to above, pointed out by the appellant in paragraph 7 sub paragraph (iii) are hereby expunged.