Dhananjay Krishnanath Gaikwad & Ors vs Tuljabhavani Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. ...

[Arising out of Order dated 31st August, 2018 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in CP 32/59, 241- 242/MB/MAH/2016]

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Dhananjay Krishnanath Gaikwad, Plot No. 56, Krushna, Avdhoot Nagar, Baramati, Pune - 413102.

2. Ms. Anita Krishnanath Gaikwad, Plot No. 56, Krushna, Avdhoot Nagar, Baramati, Pune - 413102.

3. Ms. Varsharani Dhananjay Gaikwad, Plot No. 56, Krushna, Avdhoot Nagar, Baramati, Pune - 413102.

...Appellants

Vs

1. Tulijabhavani Cold Storage Private Limited, Plot No. 56, Krushna, Avdhoot Nagar, Baramati, Pune - 413102.

2. Mr. Ramkrishna Narsingrao Mankari, Resident of F-9, Harshvihar, S. R. N. 163/1+2A, 2B/1A, D.P. Road, Aundh, Pune - 411007.

....Respondents

Present:

For Appellants: Mr. Rahul Chitnis and Mr. Aaditya Pande, Advocates.

For Respondents: Mr. Samrat Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

Mr. Kaushik Poddar and Mr. Santosh Mishra, Advocates for Respondent No.2. -2-

BANSI LAL BHAT, J.

This appeal is directed against impugned order dated 31st August,

2018 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench

(hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") whereby and whereunder the

petition filed by Respondent No. 2 - 'Mr. Ramkrishna Narsingrao Mankari'

(hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioner") under Section 59, 241-242, 246,

337 to 341 of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")

against Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "Company") and the

Appellants (hereinafter referred to as "Respondents No. 2 to 4") alleging

several acts of oppression/ mismanagement, came to be allowed with

certain directions. The Appellants have assailed the impugned order

primarily on the ground that the Tribunal erred in passing the impugned

order in as much as the Petitioner had been repaid the entire consideration

amount paid by him for the purchase of shares and the petition was barred

by limitation.

2. A flashback of the events and the factual matrix bearing upon the

case in hand, being inevitable, may briefly be noticed. The Company styled

as 'Tulijabhavani Cold Storage Private Limited' was incorporated as a Private

Limited Company on 30th June, 2003 with the main object of undertaking

and carrying on provisions of cold storage and food processing, etc. with

authorized paid up capital of Rs.5 Lakhs. Respondents No. 2 and 3 were the

Company Appeal (AT) No. 322 of 2018 -3-

Promoters of the Company holding 25% each of the paid up equity share

capital of the Company with balance 50% held by other two Promoters viz.

'Dahairyasheel Gaikwad' and 'Sanjay Jadhav' in equal shares. Respondents

No. 2 to 4 were the Directors and the Shareholders of the Company. There

was no change in the authorized, issued, subscribed and paid up capital of

the Company till filing of petition. According to Petitioner, Respondent No. 2

being in dire need of funds approached the Petitioner for investment in

equity shares of the Company thereby persuading the Petitioner to purchase

the majority shareholding of equity shares of himself and other Respondents

in the Company, allegedly at a huge premium. Petitioner claimed to have

purchased 25,500 equity shares representing 51% equity shares of the

capital of the Company from Respondents No. 2 and 4 at Rs.275 per equity

share as against face value of Rs.10 per share with Respondents No. 2 and 4

assuring the Petitioner that all documents would be executed for transfer of

majority shareholding of the equity shares in the Company in favour of

Petitioner and in this regard all legal formalities and compliances will be

observed. Allegedly, Petitioner was also assured of being made a non-

retiring Director on the Board of Directors of the Company vested with Veto

Power besides being made a signatory to all the bank accounts.

Respondents No. 2 and 4 executed the prescribed Share Transfer Forms in

favour of the Petitioner for the transfer of 25,500 equity shares. Transfer of

shareholding was placed before the Board of Directors of the Company on

4th February, 2013 which passed the unanimous resolution for approval of

the transfer of shareholding as aforesaid favouring the Petitioner. The

Company Appeal (AT) No. 322 of 2018 -4-

Board of Directors further resolved to appoint the Petitioner as Additional

Director of the Company to hold office till the conclusion of next Annual

General Meeting. Transfer Share Certificates were issued in favour of the

Petitioner for a consideration of Rs.70 Lakhs paid to Respondent No. 2 and

Respondent No. 4 in the following proportion:-

 Respondent No. 2 - Rs.63,13,725/-

 Respondent No. 4 - Rs.6,86,275/-

Respondent No. 2 to 4 handed over the duly signed and endorsed

equity share certificates to the Petitioner with assurance extended to

Petitioner that the Register of Members and the Register of Transfers

maintained by the Company were updated and necessary entries were

effected therein. This led the Petitioner to believe that he had become a

majority shareholder of the Company and also a Director on the Board of

Directors of the Company. The Petitioner alleged that in fact he was

defrauded as these events were never recorded by the Respondents in the

record. The Petitioner further alleged that R-2 filed the balance sheet and

annual return of the Company for the year ending 31st March, 2013 with

ROC wherein the name of Petitioner was deliberately not reflected. However,

this fact came to the notice of the Petitioner only in the year 2016 while

making a search in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs website. Petitioner

found that his majority stake was not reflected in the record for Financial

Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 despite the fact that such statements and

returns were prepared by R-2 to R-4 after the date of investments made by

Company Appeal (AT) No. 322 of 2018 -5-

the Petitioner. It is further alleged that no notice of the Annual General

Meeting was issued to Petitioner despite he being a majority shareholder.

Instead a meeting was held on 30th September, 2014 without the knowledge

of the Petitioner. The Petitioner alleged that the aforesaid acts of

Respondents 2 to 4 not only amounted to fraud but also oppression of the

Petitioner and mismanagement of affairs of Company on the part of

Respondents 2 to 4. Petitioner also alleged many irregularities in running

the affairs of the Company by Respondents No. 2 to 4 and sought reliefs

including disqualification of Respondents No. 2 to 4 from Directorship of the

Company and cancellation of their Director Identification Number (DIN).

3. A glance at the record of the Tribunal brings it to fore that the

Respondents did not file any reply despite several opportunities granted by

the Tribunal. Thus, the allegations in the petition before the Tribunal stood

unrebutted and uncontroverted.

4. The Tribunal found that the factum of investment of Rs.70 Lakhs by

Petitioner towards purchase of 25,500 shares belonging to R-2 and R-4 has

not been at all disputed and the controversy stems out of breach of promise

on the part of R-2 qua transfer of shares and appointment of Petitioner as

Director. The Tribunal also found that the Respondents never intimated

through notice the board meeting thereby keeping the Petitioner in dark in

regard to day to day functioning of the Company. The Tribunal also found

that the Respondents had also failed to invite the Petitioner to assume

charge as Director and manage the affairs of the Company being the

Company Appeal (AT) No. 322 of 2018 -6-

majority shareholder. The Tribunal was of the view that the Respondents

conduct was questionable in as much as they received substantial money

from the Petitioner on the pretext of transferring shares to him but

defrauded him by not effecting transfer of shares in his name. Therefore,

the Tribunal considered it necessary to pass a slew of directions for

safeguarding the interest of Petitioner and managing the affairs of the

Company in accordance with the mandate of law. The Tribunal held the

Respondents guilty of oppression and mismanagement, declared the board

meetings held after 04 February, 2013 as void, directed rectification of

balance sheet drawn as on 31st March, 2013, rectification of registration of

members, besides directing the Respondents to execute share transfer forms

in favour of the Petitioner and complete all legal formalities for transfer of

share certificates in the name of the Petitioner and also directed

appointment of Petitioner as Director besides other directions incidental

thereto culminating in constitution of new Board of Directors.

5. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the

Company Petition was barred by limitation. It is contended that the

Tribunal failed to give due weightage to the fact that the Petitioner had

received back the entire consideration amount from Respondent No.4. It is

further contended that the Respondents failure to file reply to the Company

Petition was not on account of any lapse on their part but due to forfeiture

of their right to file the reply by the Tribunal. It is contended that the

Tribunal failed to address the material issues raised by the Respondents

and erred in drawing conclusions which were not justified.

Company Appeal (AT) No. 322 of 2018 -7-

6. In his reply affidavit Petitioner has stated that several acts of

oppression/ mismanagement by the Respondents detailed in the Company

Petition form a part of continuous process of oppression and

mismanagement continuing upto the date of filing of Company Petition, thus

the Company Petition was within the period of limitation. It is further stated

that the Petitioner paid Rs.70 Lakhs to the Respondent No. 2 and 4 towards

consideration of 25,500 equity shares purchased by the Petitioner

representing 51% equity shares as acquired by him in the Company and

resolution for transfer of such shares was passed by the Board of Directors

of the Company in the meeting held on 4th February, 2013. It is further

stated that the Respondent No. 2 to 4 handed over the duly signed and

endorsed equity share certificates to the Petitioner after effecting the transfer

of 25,500 equity shares. However, these events were never recorded by

Respondents in their records, thus, defrauding the Petitioner. It is further

stated that the Petitioner was further persuaded by Respondent No.2 to

advance him a loan of Rs.20 Lakhs for utilizing the same for payment of

Service Tax of the Company. Petitioner, believing in good faith gave a loan of

Rs.20 Lakhs to Respondent No. 2 as on 31st December, 2013 with the

understanding that the same will be repaid by Respondent No. 2 within a

period of two months. It is further stated that false documents were

fraudulently filed by the Respondents with the Registrar of Companies to

cheat the Petitioner who learnt about the true state of affairs only in year

2016 from the office of Registrar of Companies. It is further stated that after

great persuasion the loan amount of Rs.20 Lakhs was repaid to Petitioner

Company Appeal (AT) No. 322 of 2018 -8-

on 7th August, 2015 i.e. after huge gap of more than one year and six

months. It is further stated that the majority stake of the Petitioner was not

reflected in the balance sheets and annual return filed by the Company for

the Financial Year 2012-13, 2013-14. Incorrect and misleading information

was provided to the Registrar of Companies. It is further stated that no

notice of General Meetings of the Company after acquisition of majority

shares by the Petitioner was given to Petitioner and no compliance was

made with the legal provisions regarding holding of such General Meetings.

It is stated that fraud has been played upon the Petitioner and the

Respondents have filed false and misleading statements before the Registrar

of Companies. It is further stated that the Respondents are diverting

majority of the business and profit of the Company to another

proprietorship of Respondent No.2 deceptively styled as 'Tulijabhavani Cold

Storage', which is a clear example of siphoning of funds of the Company by

the Respondents and mismanagement of Company by the Respondents. The

acts of mismanagement by the Respondents are stated to have gravely

affected the interests of the Petitioner. Grounds of appeal have been refuted

and it is stated that the interests of the Petitioner have been greatly

prejudiced.

7. In their rejoinder affidavit Appellants (Respondents 2 to 4 in Company

Petition), while reiterating the grounds of appeal, stated that the Tribunal

failed to deal with the issue of limitation raised in terms of Miscellaneous

Application No. 236 of 2018 filed in the Company Petition. It is stated that

since February, 2013 the Petitioner was aware that the Respondents 2 to 4

Company Appeal (AT) No. 322 of 2018 -9-

had not acted upon the allotment of shares and had not transferred the

shares in the records of Company and hence the cause of action for filing

the Company Petition arose in February, 2013, therefore, the Company

Petition was barred by limitation.

8. It is contended on behalf of Appellants (Respondents 2 to 4 in

Company Petition) that the Tribunal has failed and neglected to decide

whether Company Petition No. 32 of 2016 was barred by limitation though

M.A. No. 236 of 2018 was taken up for hearing alongwith Company Petition.

It is further contended that the right to sue accrued to the Respondent No. 2

(Petitioner in the Company Petition) in February, 2013 and the period of

limitation being three years, the Company Petition having been filed on 19 th

September, 2016 was barred by limitation. Learned counsel for Appellants

submitted that the matter was required to be remanded back to the Tribunal

to decide the Company Petition on the issue of limitation.

9. Per contra it is contended on behalf of Respondent No. 2 (Petitioner)

that the Appellants (Respondents No. 2 to 4) are trying to reopen the case

and raise issues which have already been decided. It is further submitted

that the plea raised by Respondents No. 2 to 4 that cause of action arose on

4th February, 2013 when the documents pertaining to transfer of shares in

favour of Petitioner were executed and same were approved by the Board of

Directors in the Board Meeting held on the same date is misleading as the

issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and as a matter of

fact Petitioner got knowledge of wrong doings of Respondents No. 2 to 4 only

Company Appeal (AT) No. 322 of 2018 -10-

after doing a search with the Registrar of Companies in February, 2016 and

the Company Petition was filed on 19th of September, 2016. It is submitted

that these facts stand unrebutted and uncontroverted as the defense of

Respondents No. 2 to 4 had been struck off. Company Petition was filed on

19th September, 2016 well within the period of three years prescribed as

limitation, which would commence from the date of knowledge of

misconduct of Respondents No. 2 to 4 viz. 2nd February, 2016 and

subsequently, confirmed from the Annual Report of the Financial Year

ending 31st March, 2016. It is further submitted that even if the petitioner

could have got knowledge of the Annual Report when the Annual General

Meeting was held on 30th September, 2013, which he did not attend due to

non-intimation, still the Company Petition was within the prescribed period

of limitation.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. After

wading through the record of the Tribunal, we find that during hearing

before the Tribunal on 7th April, 2017 a mutual settlement was recorded by

virtue whereof a payment of Rs.1.33 crores was to be made by Respondent

No. 2 to the Petitioner. In terms of undertaking the payment was to be

made by 30th April, 2017. The record further lays bare that on 1st May,

2017 two post-dated cheque respectively of Rs.69,86,275/- dated 07th June,

2017 and Rs.63,13,725/- dated 20th May, 2017 were delivered to the

Petitioner with the understanding that the share transfer applications would

be signed only after encashment of cheque. However, as recorded on 19th

June, 2017, both cheque bounced. On a cause shown to the Tribunal, fresh

Company Appeal (AT) No. 322 of 2018 -11-

cheque in the same amount were issued by Respondent No. 2 favouring the

Petitioner with an understanding that the cheque would be encashed on or

before 31st July, 2017. The cheque issued could not be encashed. Despite

extending the deadline in lieu of costs, Respondent No. 2 failed to abide by

the settlement and the right of Respondents to file reply was forfeited.

Consequently, the allegations in the Company Petition regarding oppression

and mismanagement remained uncontroverted and unrebutted. The facts

asserted by the Petitioner and the allegations constituting oppression and

mismanagement largely owe their genesis to the investment of Rs.70 Lakhs

by Petitioner which were paid to the Respondent No. 2 and 4 towards

consideration of 25,500 equity shares purchased by the Petitioner

representing 51% equity shares acquired by him in the Company. A

resolution for transfer of such shares was passed by the Board of Directors

of the Company in the meeting held on 4th February, 2013 approving the

transfer of 25,500 equity shares of the Company at a price of Rs.275 per

share for a total amount of Rs.70 Lakhs. Respondent No. 2 to 4 handed

over the duly signed and endorsed equity share certificates to the Petitioner

after effecting the transfer of 25,500 equity shares. There is no specific

denial in regard to these facts which has the effect of admission on the part

of Respondents No. 2 to 4. Plea raised before this Appellate Tribunal that

the consideration amount of the transferred equity shares was refunded to

Petitioner is a bald assertion which has neither been raised before the court

of first instance nor is the same supported by record. This is apart from the

fact that refund of consideration after completing the transaction of transfer

Company Appeal (AT) No. 322 of 2018 -12-

would be of no consequence and would not invalidate the transfer of

shareholding effected in favour of the Petitioner. This bald assertion

emanating from the Appellant has to be outrightly rejected.

11. The unrebutted and uncontroverted factual matrix placed before the

Tribunal as also forming the bedrock of the matter in issue before this

Appellate Tribunal leads to no other conclusion than the one that the

factum of transfer of majority shareholding in favour of Petitioner by

Respondents 2 to 4 and approval of the transfer of 25,500 equity shares of

the Company in favour of the Petitioner for a consideration amount of Rs.70

Lakhs by the Board of Directors remains undisputed and stands proved.

The subsequent events including holding of Annual General Meeting by

Respondents 2 to 4 on 30th September, 2013 for approving the Balance

Sheet and Annual Report for financial year ending 31st March, 2013 without

notice to Petitioner, filing of Form 23AC and Form 23ACA with Ministry of

Corporate Affairs on 19th October, 2013 followed by filing of Form 20B on

13th November, 2013 before Ministry of Corporate Affairs by Respondents 2

to 4, as borne out by record, amply demonstrate that the Petitioner was

deceitfully entrapped, made to invest a huge amount of Rs.70 Lakhs with

false promise of catapulting him to the status of majority equity shareholder

with 51% stakes and a false belief induced to induct him as a non-retiring

Director. This conclusion is clearly deducible from the fact that these events

were never recorded by Respondents in their records, thus, defrauding the

Petitioner. The majority stake of the Petitioner was not reflected in the

balance sheets and annual return filed by the Company for the Financial

Company Appeal (AT) No. 322 of 2018 -13-

Years ending March 2013 and March, 2014 thereby justifying the

conclusion that incorrect and misleading information was provided to the

Registrar of Companies by filing false and fabricated statements. On facts no

conclusion incompatible with the one arrived at by the Tribunal is possible.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts duly supported by record and not

controverted by Respondents No. 2 to 4 it can safely be stated that while

Respondents No. 2 to 4 derived pecuniary advantage by effecting the

transaction of transfer of shareholding of majority stakes in the Company in

favour of the Petitioner, they jeopardized his legal rights and exposed his

legitimate interests to peril by not giving effect to the transaction, despite

approval by Board of Directors, by indulging in acts of omission and

commission in regard to statutory compliances and holding of Annual

General Meetings causing grave prejudice to Petitioner who was kept in dark

about the true state of affairs. Tables were turned on the Petitioner when he

discovered from the record of Registrar of Companies somewhere in

February, 2016 that the factum of transfer of shares in his favour had been

suppressed by Respondents No. 2 to 4. In the given circumstances, no fault

can be found with the finding that Respondents No. 2 to 4 have been

conducting the Company's affairs prejudicial to the Petitioner as also to the

interests of the Company justifying the directions slapped in terms of the

impugned order.

12. The only question for consideration is the issue of limitation raised

by the Appellants (Respondents 2 to 4 in Company Petition) through the

medium of a Miscellaneous Application while their right to file reply to the

Company Appeal (AT) No. 322 of 2018 -14-

Company Petition stood forfeited. It is the dictum of law that the issue of

limitation should be alive to the mind of the court dealing with the lis and

has to be looked into irrespective of the fact that such an issue has not been

raised by the Defendant/ Respondent. Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963

eloquently speaks of this legal position which is profitably reproduced

hereinbelow:-

"3. Bar of limitation.-(1) Subject to the provisions

contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit

instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the

prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation

has not been set up as a defence."

Therefore, Appellants (Respondents 2 to 4 in Company Petition) would

be within their rights to legitimately raise the issue of limitation

notwithstanding the fact that their right to file defense stood forfeited.

Unless the lis/ appeal falls within the exceptions enumerated under

Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the mandate of law enshrined

in Section 3 cited above renders it imperative upon the Court/ Tribunal

hearing the suit/ appeal to dismiss the lis filed or preferred after the

prescribed period of limitation. Thus, no exception can be taken to such

issue being raised by the Appellants (Respondents 2 to 4 in Company

Petition). The Tribunal appears to have overlooked the issue of limitation

despite the same having been raised and brought to the notice of the

Tribunal. Ordinarily, the matter would be remanded to the Tribunal for

Company Appeal (AT) No. 322 of 2018 -15-

determining this issue. However, since we concur with the finding of

Tribunal as regards oppression of Petitioner justifying the slew of directions

passed in terms of the impugned order, we deem it appropriate to deal with

the issue of limitation in these very proceedings.

13. It is well settled that a plea of limitation is a mixed question of law and

fact. Reference in this regard may profitably be made to the judgment of

Hon'ble Apex Court rendered on 11th July, 2006 in Civil Appeal No. 4766 of

2001 titled 'Ramesh B Desai & Ors. Vs. Bipin Vadilal Mehta & Ors.'

reported in (2006) 5 SCC 638 (para 19). It is not in dispute that in regard to

matters falling within the purview of Section 241-242 of the Companies Act,

2013, the Limitation Act does not specifically provide for a period of

limitation. In terms of Article 137, which is applicable to matters for which

no period of limitation is specifically provided, the period of limitation is

three years from the date when the right to apply accrues. Unless there is a

continuing cause of action, the right to apply will have to be construed as

having accrued when the first violation of right occurs or is discovered.

Successive violation of right will not give rise to a fresh cause of action. In

the instant case, the Appellants have not controverted the factum and

validity of transfer of 25,500 equity shares of Company in favour of

Respondent No. 2 (Petitioner) against consideration of Rs.70 Lakhs when the

relevant documents in regard to the transfer of shares were executed on

4th February, 2013 and the transfer of shares was approved by the Board of

Directors in its meeting held on the same date. However, no notice was

issued to Respondent No. 2 in regard to Annual General Meeting held on

Company Appeal (AT) No. 322 of 2018 -16-

30th September, 2013 to approve the Balance Sheet and Annual Report for

Financial Year ending March 2013. Appellants have subsequently filed

compliances in the prescribed format on 19th October, 2013 and 13th

November, 2013, respectively. According to Respondent No.2, he gained

knowledge about suppressing of factum of transfer of majority shareholding

in his favour on search of documents filed with Registrar of Companies,

thereby gaining knowledge firstly on 2nd February, 2016 and subsequently

from the Annual Report of Financial Year ending March, 2016 filed with the

Registrar of Companies, which revealed that the Appellants had fraudulently

not disclosed the Respondent No. 2 as the majority shareholder of the

Company. These facts stand unrebutted and uncontroverted. While each

filing of statutory compliances suppressing the material facts in regard to

majority shareholding of Respondent No. 2 with fraudulent intention on the

part of Appellants would constitute a continuing cause of action,

computation of period of limitation even from 30th September, 2013 (when

the Annual General Meeting was held) would bring the Company Petition

within the period of limitation in as much as the Company Petition was filed

on 19th September, 2016 though knowledge cannot be imputed to

Respondent No. 2 as he had no notice of the Annual General Meeting and it

was only on 2nd February, 2016 that he claims to have gained knowledge of

the misconduct on the part of the Appellants after searching through the

record of Company and the Annual Report for Financial Year ending March,

2016 available with the Registrar of Companies. The allegations in the

Company Petition being unrebutted and uncontroverted and there being

Company Appeal (AT) No. 322 of 2018 -17-

nothing on record to dislodge the version of Respondent No. 2 (Petitioner

before the Tribunal) placed before the Tribunal, the Company Petition

cannot be held to be barred by limitation.

14. Having considered the matter in its proper perspective and the

proposition of facts emerging from unrebutted Company Petition further

corroborated by the sequence of events encompassing the settlement

reached between the parties followed by issuance of cheques favouring the

Respondent No. 2 herein which subsequently bounced followed by eventual

back out after protracting the matter considerably which lends further

credence to the allegations of oppression emanating from the Petitioner, the

slew of directions in terms of the impugned order cannot be termed harsh or

uncalled for. The Appellants appear to have not only taken the petitioner for

a ride by making him part with huge money of Rs.70 Lakhs under garb of

inducting him as a majority shareholder and non-retiring Director having

effective control over management of the Company but also dragged their

feet even in honouring their commitments under the mutual settlement,

thus indulging in unwarranted acts jeopardizing the legitimate interests of

the Respondent No. 2 (Petitioner) and causing him grave prejudice. This

appeal is yet another brazen attempt to further prolong perpetuation of the

acts of oppression against the Respondent No. 2 (Petitioner) without there

being any substance in the appeal, which in the context of breach of

undertakings given to Tribunal pursuant to mutual settlement, can safely be

termed as frivolous.

Company Appeal (AT) No. 322 of 2018 -18-

15. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the appeal is dismissed, as the

impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity and the Company

Petition is not barred by limitation. Considering the fact that the appeal is

frivolous, we impose total costs of Rs.1.00 Lakh (Rupees One Lakh Only)

upon the Appellants, which shall be deposited with the 'Ministry of

Corporate Affairs' in the form of a Demand Draft within 30 days.

[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Member (Judicial)

[Balvinder Singh] Member (Technical)

NEW DELHI

25th July, 2019

AM

Company Appeal (AT) No. 322 of 2018