AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
06.12.2021: Heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant.
The Appellant/applicant has preferred the instant Company Appeal (AT)(CH) No.42/2021 before this ‘Tribunal’ as an ‘Aggrieved Person’ being dis-satisfied with the ‘Order’ dated 04.08.2021 in IA/1340/IB/2020 in TCP/102/2016 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-II, Chennai.
The National Company Law Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 04.08.2021 in IA/1340/IB/2020 in TCP/102/2016 (Filed by the Appellant/Applicant at para 4 and 5 had observed the following:
“The Company is neither the Petitioner not the Respondent in any of the proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. Therefore, the Appellant/2nd Respondent seeking permission to file the pleadings and the typed set filed in C.R.P.(PD) No.480/2020 as part of this application is irrelevant. The reliefs sought by the Applicant/2nd Respondent to take on record the pleadings and typed set filed in CRP (PD) No.480/2020 as pert of the pleadings in TCP No.102 of 2016 is declines.” and ultimately dismissed the in IA/1340/IB/2020 in TCP/102/2016.
Challenging the dismissal of the in IA/1340/IB/2020 in TCP/102/2016, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/applicant submits that the impugned order suffers from infirmity and that the ‘Tribunal’ had dismissed the IA on the pretext that the Appellant/Application is neither the Petitioner not the Respondent in any of the proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras and further that the impugned order proceeded to observe that the Appellant/Applicant/2nd Respondent was seeking permission to file proceedings under C.R.P.(PD) No.480/2020 as part of this application is irrelevant.
The prime contention advanced on behalf of the Appellant is that the ‘Tribunal’ without considering the documents placed by the Appellant/Applicant as the same pertains to the very subject matter of the TCP/102/2016 before the Tribunal, had passed the impugned order and on this score alone the said order is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.
The other submission projected on the side of the Appellant is that if the documents in question are brought on record, no harm or prejudice would be caused to the Respondent.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Applicant contends that if the said documents are not brought on record, an irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the Appellant/applicant.
It is not in dispute that the Appellant/Applicant/2nd respondent and the Respondent who had entered into a MOU between them has a serious dispute and because of the dispute, the same had culminated in filing a suit in OS No.14/2020 on the file of Learned District. Judge, Salem seeking payment of the Rs.6/- crores with interest by the Appellant/Applicant from the Respondent.
On 17.11.2018 the Respondents filed ‘Rejoinder’ before the ‘Tribunal’ in TCP/102/2016 had stated that a sum of Rs.6 crore has nothing to do with the subject matter of this Company Petition.
In view of the fact that the Company is neither an Appellant/Petitioner nor figured as Respondent in any of the proceeding pending before the Hon’ble High Court in CRP(PD) NO.480/2020 the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the IA/1340/IB/2020 in TCP/102/2016 by passing the impugned order and the same is held by this Tribunal as one free from any legal flaws. Viewed in that perspective, the Company Appeal (AT)(CH) No.42/2021 fails and accordingly the Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Connected pending IA, if any is closed.