Concast Steel & Power Ltd vs Regional Director, Eastern Region & Ors

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI

Company Appeal (AT) No. 186 of 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

Concast Steel & Power Ltd. Appellant

Vs.

Regional Director, Eastern Region & Ors. Respondents

Present: For Appellant:- Mr. Saurabh Kalia and Mr. Palash Agarwal, Advocates. Mr. Deepak Kr. Khaitan, Company Secretary.

ORDER

14.07.2017- The appellant/ petitioner has challenged the order dated

6th April, 2017, passed by National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter

referred to as 'Tribunal'), Kolkata Bench, Kolkata, whereby and

whereunder the Tribunal dismissed the Company Petition No.

137/2017 preferred by appellant as not maintainable.

2. The appellant, the transferee company filed application under

section 231 of the Companies Act, 2013 for the direction to rectify the

errors crept in the order dated 26th November 2015 passed by the

Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CP No. 1054/2014 and in CA

No.552/2014.

3. By order dated 12th April, 2016, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court

ordered for dissolution of all transferor companies without winding up

to the transferee company. According to appellant, some errors have

been detected now in the Schedule appended to the order passed by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court dated 26th November, 2015 and 12th

April, 2016. However, as power of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has

been taken away pursuant to the notification dated 7th December 2016,

the appellant moved before the Tribunal for rectification of the errors.

The Tribunal dismissed the same on the ground that the petition was

not maintainable as orders have been passed by the Hon'ble Calcutta

High Court.

4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant relied on sub-section (3) of Section

231 of the Companies Act, 2013 to suggest that the provision also

applies in case orders have been made by the Hon'ble High Court,

which reads as follows:

"231. Power of Tribunal to enforce compromise or

arrangement.-

rrangement.-

(1)&(2) (1) & (2) xxx xxx xxx

(3) The provisions of this section shall, so far as may be, also

apply to a company in respect of which an order has been

made before the commencement of this Act sanctioning a

compromise or an arrangement."

5. Notices were issued to the respondents but in spite of service of

the notice, nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

6. In the present case, we find that the Tribunal has not noticed

the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 231 and not decided the

issue taking into consideration the provision of the law. We are of the -3-

view that the matter has to be remanded back to the Tribunal to decide

the question whether the Tribunal in exercise of power conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 231, can modify the orders passed by the

Hon'ble Calcutta High Court.

7. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the order dated 6th April,

2017, passed by Tribunal in C.P.No. 137 of 2017 and remit the matter

to the Tribunal to decide the question in light of the provision as

referred to above.

8. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the

question as to whether the Tribunal is empowered to correct the errors

referred to in the order passed by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court

under sub-section (3) of Section 213 of the Companies Act, 2013,

which is to be decided by Tribunal uninfluenced by its earlier order or

this order of the Appellate Tribunal.

9. With the above observations the appeal stands disposed of.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no

order as to costs.

(Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya) Chairperson

(Mr. Balvinder Singh) Member(Technical) ar