Dr. Anurag Dikshit vs Galaxy Life Care Services Pvt. Ltd

[Arising out of Order dated 31st May, 2018 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Allahabad Bench in Company Petition No. 80/ND/2015]

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Dr. Anurag Dikshit R/o J 112/102-A, Brij Villas, Dhoopchandi, Varanasi (U.P.) - 221010.

2. Mr. Deepak Kumar Bahal, R/o 35, Jawahar Nagar, Bhelupur, Varanasi (U.P.) - 221010.

...Appellants

Vs

1. Galaxy Life Care Services Pvt. Ltd. Having it's Registered office at: Plot No. 4, 5, 6 & 7 Dayal Enclave, Mehmoor Ganj, Varanasi (U.P.) - 221010.

2. Dr. V. D. Tiwari (Director) Galaxy Life Care Services Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 4, 5, 6 & 7 Dayal Enclave, Mehmoor Ganj, Varanasi (U.P.) - 221010.

....Respondents

Present: For Appellants: Mr. Abhay K. Das, Advocate.

For Respondents: Mr. Rajnish Sinha and Ms. Shreya Kohli, Advocates. -2-

BANSI LAL BHAT, J.

Judicial complicity in procrastination of proceedings, judicial or quasi-

judicial in nature, is both undesirable and unwarranted. It is perhaps more

so when the material facts are overlooked or glossed over. The instant case

presents a typical instance of a flawed approach adopted in declining the

Appellant to amend relief clause in his petition filed under Section 397/398

of the Companies Act, 1956 which was purely innocuous and sought a

cosmetic change which was necessitated due to an event occurring post filing

of the petition. The view taken by the Tribunal in passing the impugned order

dated 31st May, 2018 in C.P. No. 80/ND/2015 is erroneous and cannot be

sustained.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties briefly, we are of the

considered view that the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity as well

as factual fraility. Admittedly, the petition under Section 397/398 of the

Companies Act, 1956 filed on 23.09.2015 was pending consideration when

Shri Shashi Kant Dikshit was removed from Directorship in 2016. The event

of removal of Shri Shashi Kant Dikshit from Directorship occurred after filing

of the petition at a stage when the petition is being heard. The Appellant

appears to have moved the application to amend the relief clause of the

petition attributing such necessity having arisen on account of subsequent

Company Appeal (AT) No. 237 of 2018 -3-

events. It is queer that despite noticing the factum of removal of Shri Shashi

Kant Dikshit from Directorship having occurred in 2016 well past the filing of

original petition on 23.09.2015, the Tribunal observed that "the proposed

amendment is not on account of subsequent event". The observation, being

factually incorrect, cannot be supported. Reliance placed by the Tribunal on

Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code is of little value as proceedings under

the Companies Act have no comparison with the trial of a suit. The proviso

to the Rule is not attracted even if it is held that the aforesaid provision has

application to proceedings under the Companies Act. It cannot be disputed

that there is some delay on the part of Appellant in bringing the subsequent

development to the notice of the Tribunal but that would not justify declining

the proposed amendment more particularly as it seeks amendment in the

relief clause without making any change or alteration in the body of the

petition. In fact allowing of such amendment would enable the Tribunal to

grant appropriate relief and spare it the exercise of modeling the relief to

incorporate the relief as per subsequent events.

3. The impugned order, in the light of foregoing discussion, cannot be

sustained and the same is set aside. The proposed amendment is allowed.

The Tribunal is directed to allow the Appellant to incorporate the proposed

amendment in the relief clause of the Company Petition pending consideration

before it.

4. The appeal is allowed. The Tribunal is informed of the same.

Company Appeal (AT) No. 237 of 2018 -4-

[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Member (Judicial) NEW DELHI 24th August, 2018

AM

Company Appeal (AT) No. 237 of 2018