Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2023) 12 NCLAT CK 3625

Union Of India vs M/s. Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited & Ors.

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, CHENNAI Bench · Decided on 22 December 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rakesh Kumar Jain, Member (Judicial) · Shreesha Merla, Member (Technical)
CASE NUMBER
Comp. App. (AT) (CH) No. 105 of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

32 paragraphs · 1,267 words

O R D E R

22.12.2023: This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.08.2023, by which an application filed by the appellant under Sections 388B, 397, 398, 401, 402 and 408 of the Companies Act, 1956 has been disposed of, inter-alia, on the ground that the company has already gone into CIRP vide order dated 05.07.2017 and the application regarding implementation of the Resolution Plan is pending for adjudication.

In brief, the aforesaid petition bearing CP no. 03/2014 filed in TP (PB) No. 81/388B/HDB/2017 by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs against M/s Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited & 39 Ors. in which the main relief and the interim relief were sought are as under:

RELIEF (S) SOUGHT.

In the facts and circumstances mentioned of the present case, the Petitioners most humbly pray/refer that this Hon'ble Board may graciously be pleased to:-

(i)

In the light of facts mentioned in this petition Respondent No. 3 Shri T. Vinayak Ravi Reddy, Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director and in charge of the respondent company who continues to control the affairs of Respondent Company is consistently guilty of fraud, misfeasance, persistent negligence and has failed to carry out his obligation and functions under the law and fiduciary duties resulting into business of the Respondent Company is not or has not been conducted and managed with sound business principles and prudent commercial Practices; Thus Respondent No. 3 be restrained to act as director of Respondent Company and be removed from the Board of Directors of the Respondent Company.

(ii)

Attach all the movable and immovable assets of Respondent Nos. 2 to 40 to restore the diverted funds to the respondent no. I which was unlawfully and falsely diverted for personal enrichment by the Respondent(s) from the Respondent Company.

(iii)

Restrain permanently the Respondent Company from selling alienating, disposing of or parting with the possession of any of its immovable property;

(iv)

Pass an order of Injunction thereby restraining the Respondent Nos. 2 to 9 from dealing with and/or disposing of or transferring or encumbering the shares held by them and their family members in the Respondent Company or causing any change in the shareholding pattern of the Respondent Company;

(v)

Pass an order of Injunction thereby restraining the Respondent No. 2 & 9 from causing any alteration in the Board of Directors of the Respondent No. I Company, and if necessary, a scheme be framed for effective management of the Respondent No. 1 Company;

(vi)

Direct the Respondent Nos 2 to 9. their men, servants, agents and/or assigns to render true and faithful accounts of all secret profits made by them or funds siphoned off by them as stated hereinabove and this Hon'ble Board may be pleased to pass such further order or orders and/or direction or directions in this regard as this Hon'ble Board thinks fit and proper;

(vii)

Permit the Central Government to appoint majority directors on the board of the Respondent Company as being necessary to effectively safeguard the interest of the Respondent Company, or its shareholders or the public interests to hold office for the period of three years at a time.

INTERIM RELIEF

Pending decision on the present petition, the petitioners pray that this Hon'ble Board may graciously be pleased to pass the following interim order(s);

(i)

Maintain status-quo in relation to day to day management and control of the business of the Respondent Company by the Respondent No. 2 to 9.

(ii)

The existing Board of Directors of the Respondent No. 1 Company be superseded and a Special Officer/ Administrator/Receiver be appointed to carry out the management of the affairs of the Company;

(iii)

Special Officer and/or Administrator and/or Receiver be appointed to take custody of all the books, records and documents of the Respondent No. I Company together with all the fixed assets of the Company forthwith;

(iv)

Injunction restraining the Respondent No. 2 & 9 from acting and/or functioning and/or holding themselves out as Directors and/or Executives of the Respondent No. 1 Company;

(v)

No board meeting or shareholder meeting be held without prior consent and notice to the Petitioner.

vi) To restrain the Respondents from selling, adjusting, encumbering, transferring or mortgaging the assets of the Respondent No. 1 Company or creating any third party interest therein till the disposal of the present petition.

vii) Direct Respondents Nos. 2 to 40 to deposit with interest various sum siphoned off illegally and unauthorisedly by the respondents.

viii) Direct that the books of accounts/minutes books and records of the Respondent No. 1 Company be authenticated by officer of this Hon'ble Board.

ix) Direct the respondents to restrain from filing any document with ROC till the finalization of case by this Hon'ble Board.

x)

restrain the Respondent No. 2 to 9 not to open any Account with any Branch of any Bank and more particularly the Cash Credit Account and the Current Accounts of the Respondent No. 1 Company without the consent of the Petitioner,

xi) Ad interim ex- parte order in terms of prayers above;

xii) Allow the petitioner to rely on any company application, report, evidence submitted by the petitioner during the pendency of this petition;

xiii) Petitioner seek the leave of the Hon'ble Board to enlarge the scope of the reliefs sought and prayers made in this petition by filing any other documents or applications in view of the extraordinary nature of the circumstances pertaining of the present petition;

xiv) Such further and/or other order or orders be made and/or direction or directions be given as this Hon'ble Bench may deem fit and proper”.

Counsel for the Appellant has vehemently argued that there is an error on the part of the Tribunal in assuming that the application is filed by the appellant for winding up of the Respondent (M/s Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited & 39 Ors.) and thus erred in relying upon a decision in the case of ‘Avani Projects & Infrastructures Ltd. vs. Ornate Tradcom Pvt. Ltd. CA 92 of 2019’. It is further submitted that the appellant has an independent cause of action which should not have been mixed up with the insolvency proceedings initiated against M/s Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited.

We have heard Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record with his able assistance. There is no dispute that the Appellant has filed the application no. 03 of 2014 for seeking various reliefs which we have already mentioned herein before but this is also not in dispute that while the application was pending, an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 filed by the Canara Bank as the financial creditor against M/s Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited (Corporate Debtor therein) which was assigned CP No. 41/7/HDB/2017 has been admitted vide order dated 05.07.2017 and the Adjudicating Authority has initiated the CIRP proceedings. It is also not in dispute that the said CIRP proceedings have reached to the stage of consideration of Resolution Plan.

In such circumstance, once the Company against which the aforesaid application has been filed by the appellant on the allegation that there is mismanagement in the company and fraud has been played by the persons in control of the company, has gone into CIRP and, moratorium is imposed on Section 14 and the reins of the Companies are handed over to the IRP, the present application by itself does not survive as no relief be granted in the said application.

Thus, in our considered opinion, no error has been made by the Ld. Tribunal in dismissing the application as such. The appeal is thus found to be without merit and is hereby dismissed. No costs.