City Hospital Pvt. Ltd & Anr vs Mohan Paul & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 214 of 2017
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The order affirms on the merits the Tribunal's direction under the Companies Act provision for rectification of the register, and sets aside only the portion imposing costs of Rs.50,000 on the appellant, on the ground that the appellant had already complied with the Tribunal's direction, so that the costs imposition could not stand.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
City Hospital Pvt. Ltd & Anr. ....Appellants
Vs
Mohan Paul & Ors. ....Respondents
Present: For Appellants: Ms. Rohini Musa, Advocate
For Respondents: Shri T. K. Shajahan, Advocate R-1
ORDER
10.10.2017: This appeal has been preferred by appellants against order
dated 7th June 2017 passed by National Commission Law Tribunal, Chennai
Bench, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in TCP No. 226 of 2016
(C.P. No. 2 of 2015). By the impugned order, the application preferred by
respondent Mohan Paul under Section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956 (now
Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013) has been allowed and cost of
Rs.50,000/- have been imposed on the 1st Appellant.
2. On 1st July 2017, the Appellate Tribunal on consideration of the merits of
the appeal and on hearing the learned counsel for the appellant issued limited
notice on the respondent insofar it relates to imposition of cost. The order
dated 12th July 2017 reads as follows:-
"On hearing the appellant, we find that the appellant will otherwise not be affected, if the 45 numbers of equity shares issued in the name of the first respondent/ petitioner. However, we issue limited notice on respondents in so far it relates to imposition of the cost on the appellant. Requisite along with process fees, if not filed, be filed by tomorrow i.e. 13th July, 2017. If the appellants provide e- mail address of the respondents, let notice be also issued through e- mail.
Post the matter on 25th July, 2017. In the meantime, the imposition of cost of Rs.50,000/- as imposed on the appellant by the impugned order shall remain stayed."
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of 1st Respondent submits that the
order of the Tribunal has been complied by appellant in its letter and spirit.
Respondents have no say in the matter of imposition of cost.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration that the appellant has already complied with the order passed by
the Tribunal, while we affirm the impugned order on merit set aside last
portion of the impugned order dated 7th June 2017 so far as it relates to
imposition of cost of Rs.50,000/- on the appellant. The appeal is allowed to the
extent above.
(Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson
(Justice A.I.S. Cheema) (Balvinder Singh) (Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)
/asc/
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