Geometrix Laser Solutions Pvt Ltd vs Dr Bvs Lakshmi

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.113/2023 (IA Nos.1388 & 1389/2023) IN THE MATTER OF: Geometrix Laser Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ... Appellant V Dr. BVS Lakshmi & Anr. ... Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Amir Bavani, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Kopal & Ms. Rithika Reddy, Advocates

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 14.06.2024:

The Respondent No. 1 herein had instituted the proceedings by way

of filing a Company Petition No. 131/130/HDB/2019 Dr. BVS Lakshmi Vs

Geomatrix Laser Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., before NCLT, Hyderabad, whereby

invoking the provisions contained under section 130 of the Companies Act, 2013,

she sought a relief, to the effect of appointment of an independent auditor, so as

to re-open and re-cast the financial statements of Geomatrix Laser Solutions Pvt.

Ltd.(Appellant herein), pertaining to for last eight financial years i.e., with effect

from year 2010 -2011 upto the financial years 2016-2017.

Be that as it may, at this stage of appeal, we are not venturing upon the

merits of the proceedings under section 130 of the Companies Act, 2013, because

in the instant Appeal, the present Appellant, who happens to be

Respondent/Opposite Party No. 1, in the aforesaid proceedings before NCLT,

Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 113/2023 Page 1 of 7 seeks to challenge the order dated 06.11.2023 of NCLT, Hyderabad rejecting his

application in IA No. 45/2023 praying for placing certain additional documents

in support of his defence in the proceedings of CP/131/130/HDB/2019 initiated

by Respondent No.1.

The argument of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, seeks to challenge

the impugned order on the ground that the Learned Tribunal, at the stage of

considering the IA for taking the documents on record, in the Principal

proceedings before it, ought not to have delved upon the veracity and genuineness

of the documents itself to ascertain whether the documents were at all required to

be taken on record, to be read in evidence in the proceedings under section 130

of the Companies Act instituted by the Respondent No. 1. He submits that the

Learned NCLT has travelled beyond its competence, at the stage of consideration

of the Application IA No.45/2023, because the propriety and relevance of the

documents should have been put to test by permitting the Parties to lead their

respective evidence in relation to the documents thus placed on record, in order

to establish the facts with regard to the contents of the documents. He submits

that the NCLT, should have limited itself to the aspect as to whether at all the

Application IA No. 45/2023 requires to be considered or not and it ought not to

have ventured with the aspect relevancy of the documents to be placed in the

proceedings.

Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 113/2023 Page 2 of 7

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submits that the Application

thus filed by the Appellant was preferred by invoking the provisions contained

under Rule 11, 13, 32 & 40 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. There cannot be any dispute

with regards to the extent and ambit of exercise of discretionary powers possessed

by the NCLT in relation to the aforesaid application as derived from the aforesaid

provisions under NCLT Rules of 2016, and there cannot be a strict or absolute

restriction too on the Tribunal to take the documents on record, which could have

otherwise facilitated either of the parties to the proceedings to establish their case

in order to meet out the ends of Justice and to provide a complete opportunity to

the parties to establish their case before the Learned Tribunal.

The basic principles governing additional documents on record are that the

Trial Court, being the Principal Court of evidence, i.e., the Tribunal herein,

should provide the fullest opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence in order

to enable to establish their and for the same, should permit placing of additional

documents to be taken on record subject to its relevancy to the issue under

consideration.

It is needless to mention that proceedings before the 'Tribunal' and those

before Appellate Tribunal too, would be governed by the same principles as

above.

The proceedings of the NCLT (Tribunal) are governed by the provisions

contained under NCLT Rules, 2016, as referred hereunder and provisions of

Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 113/2023 Page 3 of 7 NCLT Rules, 2016 permit the parties to establish their case by submission of

necessary documents including additional ones within the ambit of the rules

governing the proceedings before the 'Tribunal'. However, it is seen that the

documents, which were sought to be placed by the Appellant on record, as given

in the schedule of documents given in the Impugned Order, they all happen to be

the copies of criminal complaints filed before the Police Commissioner, the copy

of the FIR, etc., which are all related to criminal proceedings, from this, it is in

evident that these documents needed no further elaboration on merits after

scrutiny, because as per the settled principles of law, the criminal documents are

not at all required to be read into evidence in a civil case. Civil cases are to be

decided based on the documentary evidence or evidences which are relied by the

parties, for the reason being that the documents in a criminal cases, meant to be

exclusively considered in a criminal proceedings only for the purposes of

imposition of punishment/penalty, they are not to be read in evidence in a civil

case, before a civil court/Tribunal governed by an independent procedural law.

Further, the contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant,

that the Tribunal rejected his application based on the analysis of the contents of

these documents sought to be taken on record by the Appellant, stands contrary

to the findings of the Tribunal as recorded in the Impugned Order, wherein the

Tribunal has scrupulously followed Rule 40 of NCLT Rules, 2016 with regards

to the production of additional evidence. Apart from that, the Learned Counsel

Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 113/2023 Page 4 of 7 for the Appellant submits the order set of documents sought to be filed by him

relate to the judicial precedents held by the NCLAT or by the Hon'ble Apex

Court. We are of the view that since these documents are the Judgements rendered

by courts created under the statute, these are required to be read in evidence, but

these Judgements can still be relied by the appellant during the course of

arguments on merits and hence they are not required to be placed on record before

the NCLT as additional documents as there will be no need to establish them by

the parties to the proceedings, since being judicial precedents.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant had submitted that he has moved

the Appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, to enable him to place

on record and certain criminal documents the necessary documents before NCLT,

Hyderabad which ought to have been permitted to be filed, in support of his

contention and that he may be permitted to submit the same on record before

NCLT, as referred to in the Impugned Order to be read in evidence. However, we

feel that there would not be any relevance for the documents of a criminal

proceedings, to be placed before and relied upon in a civil proceeding under the

paramount principles are therefore is to lead that civil law does not permit to read

documents of criminal case to be read in a civil case. Further the set of judicial

precedence can still be read by him during arguments seen in this light, the

application thus preferred by the Appellant being IA No. 45/2023, was rightly

rejected by NCLT, Hyderabad because there is no apparent procedural error

Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 113/2023 Page 5 of 7 committed which is required to be considered by this Appellate Tribunal, when it

stands the test of procedure prescribed under the NCLT Rules, 2016.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has referred to a number of

judgements rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and by the Hon'ble High Court

in support of his contention to permit placing additional documents on record.

However, it is to be noted that procedural principles of Order 8 of C.P.C. for

taking the documents on record pertain to the documents sought to be filed in

civil proceedings, which happens to be based on a prior permission granted by a

Civil Court under the provisions of Order 13 of the CPC. The civil proceedings

and its reasonings cannot be read as an example for procedure governed by a

special statute. Thus the Judgements which had been relied by the Learned

Counsel for the Appellant during the course of his argument, in our opinion will

not be of any support to the contention of the Appellant, to the effect that the

criminal documents can at all be brought on record by way of additional evidence

in a civil proceedings and as such, none of the Judgements as relied by the

Learned Counsel for the Appellant deal with the aspect of permitting documents

to be taken on record by invoking the provisions contained under Rule 11, 13, 32,

40 of the NCLT. Accordingly, it is an accepted fact, that the requirement of

additional documents to be taken on record would be considered by the Tribunal

as per provisions contained under 40 of the NCLT Rules and it is seen that NCLT

has done its job diligently. Hence, the rejection of IA No. 45/2023 in Company

Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 113/2023 Page 6 of 7 Petition No. 131/130/HDB/2019 filed by the Appellant do not suffer from any

error so to necessitate any intervention of this Appellate Tribunal under section

421 of the Companies Act, 2013. Thus, the Appeal lacks merits and the same is

accordingly dismissed.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Jatindranath Swain] Member (Technical)

RO/TM

Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 113/2023 Page 7 of 7