Geometrix Laser Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs Dr. BVS Lakshmi & Anr.

The Respondent No. 1 herein had instituted the proceedings by way of filing a Company Petition No. 131/130/HDB/2019 Dr. BVS Lakshmi Vs Geomatrix Laser Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., before NCLT, Hyderabad, whereby invoking the provisions contained under section 130 of the Companies Act, 2013, she sought a relief, to the effect of appointment of an independent auditor, so as to re-open and re-cast the financial statements of Geomatrix Laser Solutions Pvt. Ltd.(Appellant herein), pertaining to for last eight financial years i.e., with effect from year 2010 -2011 upto the financial years 2016-2017.

Be that as it may, at this stage of appeal, we are not venturing upon the merits of the proceedings under section 130 of the Companies Act, 2013, because in the instant Appeal, the present Appellant, who happens to be Respondent/Opposite Party No. 1, in the aforesaid proceedings before NCLT, seeks to challenge the order dated 06.11.2023 of NCLT, Hyderabad rejecting his application in IA No. 45/2023 praying for placing certain additional documents in support of his defence in the proceedings of CP/131/130/HDB/2019 initiated by Respondent No.1.

The argument of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, seeks to challenge the impugned order on the ground that the Learned Tribunal, at the stage of considering the IA for taking the documents on record, in the Principal proceedings before it, ought not to have delved upon the veracity and genuineness of the documents itself to ascertain whether the documents were at all required to be taken on record, to be read in evidence in the proceedings under section 130 of the Companies Act instituted by the Respondent No. 1. He submits that the Learned NCLT has travelled beyond its competence, at the stage of consideration of the Application IA No.45/2023, because the propriety and relevance of the documents should have been put to test by permitting the Parties to lead their respective evidence in relation to the documents thus placed on record, in order to establish the facts with regard to the contents of the documents. He submits that the NCLT, should have limited itself to the aspect as to whether at all the Application IA No. 45/2023 requires to be considered or not and it ought not to have ventured with the aspect relevancy of the documents to be placed in the proceedings.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submits that the Application thus filed by the Appellant was preferred by invoking the provisions contained under Rule 11, 13, 32 & 40 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. There cannot be any dispute with regards to the extent and ambit of exercise of discretionary powers possessed by the NCLT in relation to the aforesaid application as derived from the aforesaid provisions under NCLT Rules of 2016, and there cannot be a strict or absolute restriction too on the Tribunal to take the documents on record, which could have otherwise facilitated either of the parties to the proceedings to establish their case in order to meet out the ends of Justice and to provide a complete opportunity to the parties to establish their case before the Learned Tribunal.

The basic principles governing additional documents on record are that the Trial Court, being the Principal Court of evidence, i.e., the Tribunal herein, should provide the fullest opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence in order to enable to establish their and for the same, should permit placing of additional documents to be taken on record subject to its relevancy to the issue under consideration.

It is needless to mention that proceedings before the ‘Tribunal’ and those before Appellate Tribunal too, would be governed by the same principles as above.

The proceedings of the NCLT (Tribunal) are governed by the provisions contained under NCLT Rules, 2016, as referred hereunder and provisions of NCLT Rules, 2016 permit the parties to establish their case by submission of necessary documents including additional ones within the ambit of the rules governing the proceedings before the ‘Tribunal’. However, it is seen that the documents, which were sought to be placed by the Appellant on record, as given in the schedule of documents given in the Impugned Order, they all happen to be the copies of criminal complaints filed before the Police Commissioner, the copy of the FIR, etc., which are all related to criminal proceedings, from this, it is in evident that these documents needed no further elaboration on merits after scrutiny, because as per the settled principles of law, the criminal documents are not at all required to be read into evidence in a civil case. Civil cases are to be decided based on the documentary evidence or evidences which are relied by the parties, for the reason being that the documents in a criminal cases, meant to be exclusively considered in a criminal proceedings only for the purposes of imposition of punishment/penalty, they are not to be read in evidence in a civil case, before a civil court/Tribunal governed by an independent procedural law.

Further, the contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, that the Tribunal rejected his application based on the analysis of the contents of these documents sought to be taken on record by the Appellant, stands contrary to the findings of the Tribunal as recorded in the Impugned Order, wherein the Tribunal has scrupulously followed Rule 40 of NCLT Rules, 2016 with regards to the production of additional evidence. Apart from that, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits the order set of documents sought to be filed by him relate to the judicial precedents held by the NCLAT or by the Hon’ble Apex Court. We are of the view that since these documents are the Judgements rendered by courts created under the statute, these are required to be read in evidence, but these Judgements can still be relied by the appellant during the course of arguments on merits and hence they are not required to be placed on record before the NCLT as additional documents as there will be no need to establish them by the parties to the proceedings, since being judicial precedents.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant had submitted that he has moved the Appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, to enable him to place on record and certain criminal documents the necessary documents before NCLT, Hyderabad which ought to have been permitted to be filed, in support of his contention and that he may be permitted to submit the same on record before NCLT, as referred to in the Impugned Order to be read in evidence. However, we feel that there would not be any relevance for the documents of a criminal proceedings, to be placed before and relied upon in a civil proceeding under the paramount principles are therefore is to lead that civil law does not permit to read documents of criminal case to be read in a civil case. Further the set of judicial precedence can still be read by him during arguments seen in this light, the application thus preferred by the Appellant being IA No. 45/2023, was rightly rejected by NCLT, Hyderabad because there is no apparent procedural error committed which is required to be considered by this Appellate Tribunal, when it stands the test of procedure prescribed under the NCLT Rules, 2016.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has referred to a number of judgements rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and by the Hon’ble High Court in support of his contention to permit placing additional documents on record. However, it is to be noted that procedural principles of Order 8 of C.P.C. for taking the documents on record pertain to the documents sought to be filed in civil proceedings, which happens to be based on a prior permission granted by a Civil Court under the provisions of Order 13 of the CPC. The civil proceedings and its reasonings cannot be read as an example for procedure governed by a special statute. Thus the Judgements which had been relied by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant during the course of his argument, in our opinion will not be of any support to the contention of the Appellant, to the effect that the criminal documents can at all be brought on record by way of additional evidence in a civil proceedings and as such, none of the Judgements as relied by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant deal with the aspect of permitting documents to be taken on record by invoking the provisions contained under Rule 11, 13, 32, 40 of the NCLT. Accordingly, it is an accepted fact, that the requirement of additional documents to be taken on record would be considered by the Tribunal as per provisions contained under 40 of the NCLT Rules and it is seen that NCLT has done its job diligently. Hence, the rejection of IA No. 45/2023 in Company Petition No. 131/130/HDB/2019 filed by the Appellant do not suffer from any error so to necessitate any intervention of this Appellate Tribunal under section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013. Thus, the Appeal lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.