B. Govinda Ramesh vs Vinyasa Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 02 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal is not required to suo motu examine every issue pleaded before it where the parties do not address those issues during the hearing; its adjudication extends to the issues actually argued. Where a party contends that issues pleaded were pressed before the Tribunal but were not decided, the appropriate remedy is an application for review, supported by a certificate of the arguing counsel that the issues were argued, so that the Tribunal may decide them in accordance with law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
B. Govinda Ramesh ...Appellant
Vs
Vinyasa Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Kumar Sudeep and Mr. Prasanna S., Advocates. For Respondents:
ORDER
03.01.2019: The Appellant/Petitioner filed an application under section 397, 398, 402 and 406 of the Companies Act, 1956 (now section 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013) alleging oppression and mismanagement. The National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') by impugned order dated 12th October, 2018 disposed of the application/ petition filed by the Appellant/Petitioner.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that apart from valuation of the share the Appellant had raised more than 10 issues but only one issue relating to valuation has been addressed and rest of the issues have not been discussed or decided by the Tribunal. However, on bare perusal of the impugned order, it appears that learned counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner raised only one issue before the Tribunal, which has decided by the Tribunal. There is nothing on record to suggest that learned counsel on behalf of the Appellant/Petitioner raised some other issues. There may be many issues pleaded before the Tribunal but the Tribunal is not required to suo-moto go through all the issues if during the hearing the parties do not address rest of the issues.
-2- 3. As learned counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner submits that all those issues were raised before the Tribunal, we are of the view that the Appellant/Petitioner may bring the same to the notice of the Tribunal by filing a petition for review alongwith certificate of the arguing counsel that he has argued on other issues. In such case, the Tribunal may decide the same in accordance with law. The appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid observation. No costs.
[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Member (Judicial) am/gc
Company Appeal (AT) No. 02 of 2019
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free