Aude Priya Donatelle Wacziarg Ep Engel vs Neemrana Hotels Pvt Ltd

(Arising out of order dated 17.10.2017 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, (New Delhi Bench), New Delhi in Company Petition No.348(ND) of 2017.

IN THE MATTER OF: Before NCLT Before NCLAT

1. Aude Priya Donatelle Wacziarg 2nd Respondent Appellant Ep Engel A-50, Nizammuddin East, New Delhi-110013,

Vs

1. Neemrana Hotels Pvt Ltd 1st Respondent 1st Respondent A-20B, Lajpat Nagar II, New Delhi.

2. Mr. Aman Nath, Petitioner 2nd Respondent 12-Jaipur Estate (First Floor), Nizamuddin East, New Delhi-110013.

3. Yatish Moncourt, 3rd Respondent 3rd Respondent B-58, Sector 57, Gautam Buddh Nagar, Noida-201301

Present: For Appellant:-Mr Jayant K. Mehta, Shri Ashish Dholakia, Ms Nidhi Mohan Parashar and Shri Roshan Chawla, Advocates.

For Respondents: - Mr. Vivek Malik and Shri Dhawal Jain, Advocates for Respondent No.1. Shri Sudhanshu Batra, Senior Advocate with Shri Krishnendu Datta, Shri Ashish Verma, Ms Sahiba Pantel and Shri Aditya Mishra, Advocates for Respondent No.2.

Company Appeal (AT) No.379 of 2017 2

JUDGEMENT

BALVINDER SINGH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

1. This appeal has been preferred by appellant under Section 421 of the

Companies Act, 2013 against the impugned order dated 17th October, 2017

passed by the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench,

New Delhi in C.P. No.348(ND) of 2017 preferred by 2nd Respondent under

Section 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013. The appellant has sought

the relief of setting aside, quashing and setting aside the impugned order

dated 17th October, 2017.

2. The brief facts of the case are that 1st respondent is a private limited

company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 was incorporated on

09.07.1993 and having its registered office at New Delhi. Mr. Francis Wacziarg

(the father of the appellant) and 2nd respondent were the founders, promoters

and equal shareholders of 1st respondent. Both Mr.Francis Wacziarg and 2nd

respondent were each holding 50% shareholding of 1st respondent. Mr.

Francis Wacziarg passed away on 19.2.2014 and after death his shareholding

devolved upon his two legal heirs i.e. appellant and son, Mr. Romain Wacziarg.

Mr. Romain Wacziarg relinquished his shareholding in favour of appellant and

thereafter the appellant settled a trust namely Wacziarg Family Trust, the

beneficiary of which were Mr.Romain Wacziarg and his children. The trust is

the holder of 25% shares in 1st respondent. Therefore, the appellant effectively

represents 50% shareholding in the 1st Respondent. The appellant was

appointed as a Director of 1st Respondent at the AGM dated 30.9.2014 and

Company Appeal (AT) No.379 of 2017 3

thereafter only two directors namely appellant and 2nd respondent are on the

Board of 1st respondent.

3. In October, 2017 the appellant came to know from independent sources

that the 2nd respondent's office as a director in 1st respondent had become

vacant on account of 2nd respondent having become disqualified under

Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013.

4. Appellant acting in furtherance of her obligations under Section 174(2)

of the Companies Act, 2013, appointed 3rd respondent on 12.10.2017 as an

Additional Director to ensure the smooth functioning of the 1st respondent

who's board consisted of only one director as the office of 2nd respondent

became vacany by operation of law.

5. On 16.10.2017, appellant received copy of Company Petition No.

348(ND)/2017 filed by 2nd respondent before the National Company Law

Tribunal, New Delhi alleging oppression and mismanagement by the appellant

seeking the following main reliefs:-

a) Issue appropriate orders, directions and reliefs under Sections 241,

242 and other applicable provisions of the Companies Act,2013 to bring

to an end the aforesaid acts of oppression and mismanagement being

perpetrated by the Respondents, including the orders, directions and

reliefs prayed for herein;

b) Pass an order declaring that the Board Meeting dated 12.10.2017

was illegal, invalid and non-est in the eyes of law and/or any other

appropriate order or directions;

Company Appeal (AT) No.379 of 2017 4

c) Issue appropriate orders and/or directions declaring the appoint of

Respondent No.3 as additional director of the Respondent No.1 as null,

void and non-est in the eyes of law.

d) Issue appropriate orders and/or directions declaring the Board

Meeting dated 12.10.2017 and all decisions taken and/or resolutions

passed at the said Board Meeting to be null, void and non est in the

eyes of law.

e) Permanent injunction restraining Respondents No.2 and/or 3 from

acting, representing and/or holding themselves out as directors of the

Respondent No.1 company;

f) Permanent injunction and/or any other appropriate order of direction

restraining Respondent No.2 and/Respondent No.3 from interfering in

the day to day affairs of the Respondent No.1 company.

g) Issue appropriate orders/directions restraining the Respondent No.2

from acting as Director of the Respondent No.1 company, inter-alia,

under Section 167 of the Companies Act, 2013 for conducting the

affairs of company in a manner which is prejudicial to the interest of

the company.

h) Issue appropriate orders and/or directions for reversal of all

decisions taken as to the affairs of Respondent No.1 company from

12.10.2017 till the date of passing the order including calling back of

any monies siphoned off by Respondent Nos 2 and/or 3 from the

account of the Respondent No.1 company.

Company Appeal (AT) No.379 of 2017 5

i) Pass a declaration that the Respondents have conducted the affairs

of the company with an intent to defraud its members or other persons,

have been guilty of fraud, misfeasance or other misconduct towards the

Respondent No.1 company and/or its members and/or liable to be

punished in accordance with law;

6. On 17.10.2017 the matter was listed. After hearing the parties the

National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi passed the following order:-

"Learned Sr. Counsels for the Petitioner have prayed for grant of

ad-interim relief. Attention of this bench is drawn to the alleged acts

of illegality attributed to Respondent No.2, whereby, she is stated to

have unilaterally inducted Respondent No.3 as an Additional Director

of the Respondent No.1 company, without convening a proper Board

Meeting. This was done on the alleged misconception that the Petitioner

had been disqualified as a Director in this case.

Notice of this Bench is drawn to a letter dated 12.10.2017,

whereby it has categorically been affirmed by the office of the ROC, that

the petitioner's representation was considered and his disqualification

has since been recalled.

Referring to the impugned acts in this case, it is argued that the

decisions taken by the newly constituted Board is tainted with

illegality, being in complete violation of the provisions of law, as the

Additional Director was appointed by Respondent No.2 in her

individual capacity and her decision was communicated by an email.

Company Appeal (AT) No.379 of 2017 6

Further, it is averred that even in such an event where a sole Director

is on the Board, an EGM can be called for passing a Resolution of a one

point Agenda i.e. of appointing an Additional Director. In the present

case, several resolutions have been passed to the alleged detriment of

the company. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand has

refuted the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner on the grounds

that there is no illegality since as on that date, Respondent No.2 was

the only Director of the Respondent Company as the Petitioner was

disqualified in terms of provisions of Section 174(2) (should be 164(2))

of the Act r/w Section 167(1)(a) of the Companies Act. She also holds

the 25% equity (the other 25% equity is held by her brother's trust) and

resolutions were passed for conducting the business of the Respondent

Company.

Be that as it may, the fact that the disqualification of the

Petitioner was an apparent error, cannot strip him of his rights, nor

vest Respondent No.2 with the right of passing resolutions as done in

the present case. Her actions appear to have been made in haste.

Without questioning her bonafides, prima facie, her actions can neither

be justified, nor be said to be in accordance with law. Accordingly, it

is directed that Status Quo ante 12.10.2017 be restored. All decisions

taken subsequent to 12.10.2017 and thereafter are hereby set aside.

The Petitioner being a Director shall be on board for all decisions to be

taken henceforth.

Reply be filed by the Respondents within three weeks.

Company Appeal (AT) No.379 of 2017 7

To come up on 16th November, 2017 for final arguments."

7. Being aggrieved by the said order 17.10.2017 the appellant has come

in appeal seeking the following relief:-

a) Set aside the impugned order dated 17.10.2017 passed by the

Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi in petition bearing

No.(IB)348(ND) of 2017; and/or

b) Pass any other order that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem

appropriate to pass in the interest of justice, equity and good

conscience.

8. The appellant have stated that the impugned order does not give any

final and conclusive reasons for setting aside the decision of the Board of 1st

Respondent after 12.10.2017. The appellant further stated that the impugned

order being final in nature is a non-speaking order.

9. The appellant stated that the office of 2nd respondent as a Director in

1st Respondent company, having become vacant, the appellant bona fide

appointed 3rd respondent so that the Board of 1st respondent is functional.

The appellant further stated that the office of the 2nd respondent as a director

in 1st respondent became vacant by operation of law.

10. The appellant further stated that the RTI, on which the 2nd respondent

is relying upon, from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs merely states that the

disqualification has now been removed and does not specifically state that the

disqualification was void ab initio.

Company Appeal (AT) No.379 of 2017 8

11. The appellant next states that the Learned Tribunal should see the

malafide action of 2nd respondent who intentionally and deliberately withheld

information about his disqualification as a Director from the Appellant.

12. The appellant stated that the Learned Tribunal has erred in holding

that disqualification of 2nd respondent cannot strip him of his rights. The

appellant further stated that the Learned Tribunal has failed to provide any

reasons for arriving at this finding.

13. The appellant stated that the Learned Tribunal by ordering "Status Quo

ante 12.10.2017 be restored, all decision subsequent to 12.10.2017 and

thereafter are hereby set aside" has set aside all decisions taken on

12.10.2017 including but not limited to the appointment of 3rd respondent.

The appellant stated that the Learned Tribunal could not have done so

without adjudicating the merits and circumstances of each of these decisions.

14. The appellant stated that the appellant acted under Section 174(2) of

the Companies Act, 2013 for the purpose increasing the number of directors.

It is next stated that under the said provision, the appellant as a continuing

director had the option to either increase the number of directors to that fixed

for quorum or to summon a general meeting of the company. The appellant

stated that the Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the Section 164(2),

167(1) and 174(2) of the Companies Act, 2013.

15. The appellant stated without setting aside the appointment of 3rd

respondent, the Tribunal could not have restored status quo ante as 3rd

Company Appeal (AT) No.379 of 2017 9

respondent was appointed director to fill the vacancy in the Board that came

to be created by the disqualification of the 2nd respondent.

16. The appellant stated that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal

is prima facie a final order and the same has been passed without the reply

of the appellant. The appellant stated that the Learned Tribunal could not

have granted the final relief at the time of admission of the aforesaid company

petition.

17. Reply has been filed by 2nd respondent. 2nd respondent has stated that

being aggrieved by the series of actions of the appellant the 2nd respondent

has filed Company Petition before the Hon'ble Tribunal.

18. 2nd respondent stated that the appellant by trying to take advantage of

an error which has been committed by Registrar of Companies vide an email

dated 12.10.2017 at 08.48 AM appointed 3rd respondent as an Additional

Director and after usurping complete control of the company, took a series of

decisions like suspending the CEO and terminated the services of two senior

consultants, which were detrimental to the interest of the company. 2nd

respondent stated that he had never vacated his office as a Director of 1st

respondent. 2nd respondent further stated that the impugned order dated

17.10.2017 passed by the Tribunal has been passed by it in exercise of its

wide powers under Section 242(4) of the Companies Act, 2013.

19. 2nd respondent stated that on 17.10.2017 a detailed hearing had taken

place before the Hon'ble Tribunal and hearing both the parties the learned

Tribunal had passed the impugned order which is a well reasoned and

Company Appeal (AT) No.379 of 2017 10

speaking order. Appellant was unable to given explanation as to how the

appointment of Additional Director can be made vide an email as against in a

Board Meeting.

20. 2nd respondent stated that the appellant herein in addition to instant

appeal, as a counter blast, has also filed a Company Petition bearing C.P.

No.401(ND)/2017 on the ground that the appellant herein was being

disallowed by the 2nd respondent to participate in the affairs of the 1st

respondent. The Learned Tribunal has issued notice and granted some

interim reliefs to the appellant. 2nd respondent stated that the impugned order

has been passed in due consideration of law.

21. 2nd respondent stated that his name had appeared in the list of

disqualified directors prepared by ROC on account of an apparent error. 2nd

respondent further stated, without prejudice, that the said disqualification if

at all was only in respect of company in which it had arisen and did not extend

to any other company. 2nd respondent stated that he had never vacated his

office in other companies except Ashok Brother Impex Pvt Ltd. 2nd respondent

stated that he always remained the director of 1st respondent and there was

no occasion for the appellant to have acted in the manner she had acted and

appointed an Additional Director in terms of Section 174(2) of the Companies

Act.

22. Rejoinder has been filed by the appellant. The appellant stated that in

terms of press release dated 12.09.2017 issued by the Ministry of Corporate

Affairs, it has been stated that upon suffering disqualification under Section

167 of the Companies Act,2013, the office of the Director shall fall vacant. The

Company Appeal (AT) No.379 of 2017 11

same also states that the disqualification under Section 164 of the Companies

Act, 2013 is by way of operation of law. The appellant stated that once the

office of 2nd respondent became vacant, 2nd respondent could not

automatically become a director even if the ROC states that the

disqualification has now been removed even though the ROC has no power to

remove such disqualification. The appellant further stated that the

disqualification incurred is not by virtue of the name appearing in the list, but

due to the fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in Section 164 of the

Companies Act, 2013. The appellant stated that it is not the ROC that

disqualifies directors, but the fulfilment of conditions present in the statute

that causes the disqualification.

23. The appellant stated that Companies Act, 2013 does not vest the ROC

with any power to cause removal of disqualification incurred under Section

164 of the Act. The proper legal course for the removal of disqualification was

to challenge the said defaulters list before a Court of Law. The appellant

further stated that, as per para 63 of Company Petition, 2nd respondent had

filed a Company Petition No.71(ND)/2013 seeking for the removal of the name

of the Petitioner from the list of disqualified directors and the Hon'ble NCLT

was pleased to issue Notice to the ROC in the said application on 09.10.2017.

The appellant stated that 2nd respondent did take some steps but later on 2nd

respondent withdrew the said application and sought to rely on the reply

received under RTI dated 12.10.2018, which stated that the disqualification

had now been removed.

Company Appeal (AT) No.379 of 2017 12

24. The appellant stated that this Appellate Tribunal vide order dated

14.11.2017 had directed that 2nd respondent will not take part in any meeting

of the Board of Directors, which relate to policy decision of the 1st Respondent.

The appellant stated that 2nd respondent having been restrained from

participating in the policy decision of 1st respondent, malafide refused to even

share the policies of the company with the appellant. The same is recorded as

part of the report of the Local Commissioner appointed at the request of the

appellant by order dated 16.11.2017 in CP No.401(ND)/2017.

25. During the course of hearing 2nd respondent was given an opportunity

to place certified copy of the application and concerned record/order from the

office of ROC which formed the basis for issuance of RTI response dated

12.10.2017. 2nd respondent filed copy of RTI application dated 4.5.2018, RTI

response bearing No.RTI/April 2018/PP/143 dated 16.5.2018.

26. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

entire record.

27. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Board of 1st

respondent consists of two directors namely appellant and 2nd respondent.

2nd respondent was disqualified under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act

from being a Director from 1.11.2014 to 31.10.2021 by the Ministry of

Corporate Affairs in September, 2017. 2nd respondent did not intimate 1st

respondent and the appellant about his disqualification and continued to be

director of 1st respondent. Learned counsel further argued that this act of 2nd

respondent has exposed the company as well as appellant to penalties and

legal action, by continuing as director. The Learned counsel for the appellant

Company Appeal (AT) No.379 of 2017 13

further argued that in para 63 (Page 85 of the Paper Book) of the Company

Petition, 2nd respondent has admitted that he had filed company petition No.

71(ND)/2013 before the NCLT, New Delhi praying for removal of his name

from the list of disqualified directors in the matter of Ashok Brothers Impex

Pvt Ltd. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that he has not removed

2nd respondent as director of 1st respondent but he was disqualified in terms

of provisions of Section 174(2) of the Act read with Section 167(1)(a) of the

Companies Act, 2013. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that

as the office of 2nd respondent as director having become vacant, therefore,

the appellant bona fide appointed 3rd respondent so that the Board of 1st

respondent is functional. Learned counsel further averred that the RTI from

the Ministry of Corporate Affairs merely states that the disqualification has

now been removed and does not state that the disqualification was void ab

initio. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the appellant

acted under Section 174(2) of the Companies Act for the purpose increasing

the number of directors as the appellant had the option to either increase the

number of directors to that fixed for the quorum or to summon a general

meeting of the company.

28. On the other side, learned counsel representing 2nd respondent argued

that the appellant by trying to take advantage of an error which has been

committed by ROC, vide an email appointed 3rd respondent as director and

that the 2nd respondent had never vacated his office as a Director of 1st

respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the appellant

convened a purported Board Meeting on 12.10.2017, for which no notice of

Company Appeal (AT) No.379 of 2017 14

the said Board Meeting was given to 2nd Respondent, and the decisions taken

therein are illegal and against the interest of the company. Learned counsel

for the 2nd respondent argued that the name of the 2nd respondent appeared

in the list of disqualified directors prepared by ROC on account of an apparent

error. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent further argued, without

prejudice, that the said disqualification if at all was only in respect of company

in which it had arisen and did not extend to any other company and the 2nd

respondent has never vacated his office in other companies, except Ashok

Brother Impex Pvt Ltd. Learned counsel for the respondent further argued

that the appointment of 3rd respondent as director was not in accordance with

law. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent further argued that by RTI

response, the ROC intimated that the matter was considered and the name of

the 2nd respondent, which was wrongly put in the list of disqualified directors

by the ROC, from the disqualified directors was removed. Learned counsel

further stated that they have filed the certified copies of these documents as

additional affidavit.

29. A perusal of the impugned order which we have reproduced in para 6

(Supra) makes it clear that at initial stage of the petition itself and even before

the appellant-respondent could file reply the impugned order declared that it

was a fact that the disqualification of the petitioner was an apparent error.

Now in the company petition filed by the respondent/original petitioner it can

be seen that the respondent was pleading by referring to developments with

regard to the other company M/s Ashok Brother Impex Pvt Ltd as to how there

were orders of Company Law Board because of which account statements

Company Appeal (AT) No.379 of 2017 15

could not be filed of that company and that the name of respondent/original

petitioner came to be entered in the list due to a technical error. The

respondent-original petitioner referred to the same as technical error due to

orders of Company Law Board. There is no dispute in arguments before us,

that regarding the fact that the appellant acted on list as has been filed as

Annexure A-2, Page 27 of the Appeal. The pleadings of the respondent-

petitioner that it was due to technical error or what, is yet to be tested in the

petition.

30. Respondent No.2-original petitioner before us has filed additional

affidavit (Diary No.5059) to say that on 22nd September, 2017 he had moved

the Registrar of Companies with reference to the removal of his name and the

name of other directors of M/s Ashok Brothers Impex Pvt Ltd. He referred to

copy of order dated 9.5.2013 of CLB in CP No.71/2013 (Page 471 of Appeal)

and copy of order dated 28.5.2013 (Page 472) of the Appeal which have been

filed with Company Petition to argue that there was stay on holding of

meetings because of which the statutory compliances could not be done. It is

argued that this was brought to the Notice of ROC to claim that his name is

wrongly entered in the list. With the additional affidavit Respondent No.2-

original petitioner has filed a copy of the documents from the record of

Registrar of Companies to show that ROC dealt with the matter of not only

Respondent No.2 but also of other companies for removing the disqualification

where "Management Dispute" or stay order was there or matter was under

consideration of NCLT. At the stage at which the present litigation is standing,

we are not entering into the dispute whether ROC could "remove

Company Appeal (AT) No.379 of 2017 16

disqualification". The dispute raised in the present matter is that the entering

the name of the respondent No.2/petitioner in the list of disqualified director

was a technical error. Original Petitioner is showing document that ROC did

act upon his representation. ROC could do so or not will be matter in issue.

That would be matter for consideration in the petition. At this stage we are

not entering into the arguments of automatic activation of disqualification

provisions as looking to the fact referred to by the parties before us, it would

have to be decided whether in fact and in law the disqualification had been

incurred.

31. If the disqualification of original petitioner whether it was in fact and in

law is yet to be decided, so is the question whether the appellant could or

could not have legally appointed Respondent No.3 as Additional Director by

sending off an email. The case put up by the appellant is that in view of

Section 174 when she was the only director left she could appoint another

Additional Director. Section 174(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 reads as

under:

(2) The continuing directors may act notwithstanding any

vacancy in the Board; but, if and so long as their number is

reduced below the quorum fixed by the Act for a meeting of the

Board, the continuing directors or director may act for the

purpose of increasing the number of directors to that fixed for the

quorum, or of summoning a general meeting of the company and

for no other purpose."

Company Appeal (AT) No.379 of 2017 17

If the above sub-section is perused when the quorum fell below the

minimum required, in the meeting the decision which was required to be

taken was limited to increasing the number of directors to that fixed for the

quorum or to take decision regarding the summoning a General Meeting of

the Company. Here, prima facie by an email Respondent No.3 was appointed.

Whether this can be said to be in compliance of the provisions of the Act, is

yet to be finally decided. Apart from this when it is apparent that the

appellant with Trust of her brother holds 50% shareholding and the other

50% was being held by the original petitioner, whether appellant acted fairly

the moment she came to know about the name of the original petitioner to be

in the list of disqualified directors is mater of consideration. When the

company had only two directors, and shareholding was equally divided

between the two groups, prima facie, fairness required consultation with the

original petitioner to ask if he would nominate a person of his choice. This

does not appear to have been done. We are concerned with the interest of the

Company because in the CP No.401(ND)/2017 which has been filed by the

appellant after the present petition, NCLT has passed the order dated

15.11.2017 (Annexure A filed with counter affidavit, Diary No.2704) and

where it is recorded that it was not in dispute that the business of the

company under the Respondent No.2 i.e. the present original petitioner had

prospered over the years.

32. Sub-Section (4) of Section 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 reads as

under:-

Company Appeal (AT) No.379 of 2017 18

(4) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the

proceeding, make any interim order which it thinks fit for

regulating the conduct of the company's affairs upon such terms

and conditions as appear to it to be just and equitable.

Keeping in view this provision, prime consideration for NCLT should

have been and which is now our consideration because of this appeal is that

the interim order needs to concentrate on regulating the conduct of the

company's affairs on such terms and conditions as are just and equitable. At

the time of notice in the present appeal vide orders dated 14.11.2017 we had

directed that the 2nd respondent-original petitioner may continue as director

for day-to-day affairs of the company but will not take part in any of the

Meeting of the Board of Directors which relates to policy decision of the

company. Now when we are disposing this appeal, we find the operative order

of the impugned order was not correct as it was in the nature of final orders

which could not have been passed at the interim stage. We intend to give

directions so as to balance the equities between the parties.

33. For the above reasons we pass the following order:-

The impugned order is quashed and in its place it is directed that the

2nd respondent-original petitioner will continue as director alongwith the

appellant. The appointment of Respondent No.3 as Additional

Director/Director is stayed. The decisions taken by original Respondent No.2

and 3 subsequent to 12.10.2017 are also stayed till the decision of the

company petition. We request NCLT to appoint, during the pendency of the

company petition, an independent Director to the company on remuneration

Company Appeal (AT) No.379 of 2017 19

similar to other directors who will ensure compliances by the Company with

provisions of the Companies Act and Rules. The Independent Director would

have casting vote in the meetings, (keeping interest of the company in view)

in case of any disagreement between the original petitioner and original

respondent No.2 of the company petition.

34. The observations made by us in this judgement relating to the dispute

are on prima facie for the purpose of deciding this appeal and shall not weigh

with the NCLT at the time of deciding the Company Petition. There shall be

no orders as to costs.

(Justice A.I.S.Cheema) (Mr.Balvinder Singh) Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)

New Delhi

Dated: 10 -8-2018

Bm

Company Appeal (AT) No.379 of 2017 20

Company Appeal (AT) No.379 of 2017