K. Vaidyalingam vs Sk Ganesh

1

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH CHENNAI COMPANY APPEAL (AT)(CH) NO.42/2021 (I.A. No.545/2021) In the matter of: K. Vaidyalingam Appellant Vs S.K. Ganesan & 13 Ors Respondent Present:

For Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Kumar Ambalavanan, Advocate For Mr. Roshan Atiq, Advocate Mr. Jerin Asher Sojan, Advocate

ORDER

VIRTUAL MODE

06.12.2021: Heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant.

The Appellant/applicant has preferred the instant Company Appeal

(AT)(CH) No.42/2021 before this 'Tribunal' as an 'Aggrieved Person' being dis-

satisfied with the 'Order' dated 04.08.2021 in IA/1340/IB/2020 in

TCP/102/2016 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Division

Bench-II, Chennai.

The National Company Law Tribunal while passing the impugned order

dated 04.08.2021 in IA/1340/IB/2020 in TCP/102/2016 (Filed by the

Appellant/Applicant at para 4 and 5 had observed the following:

"The Company is neither the Petitioner not the Respondent in any of the

proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. Therefore, the

Appellant/2nd Respondent seeking permission to file the pleadings and 2

the typed set filed in C.R.P.(PD) No.480/2020 as part of this application

is irrelevant.

The reliefs sought by the Applicant/2nd Respondent to take on record the

pleadings and typed set filed in CRP (PD) No.480/2020 as pert of the

pleadings in TCP No.102 of 2016 is declines."

and ultimately dismissed the in IA/1340/IB/2020 in TCP/102/2016.

Challenging the dismissal of the in IA/1340/IB/2020 in

TCP/102/2016, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/applicant

submits that the impugned order suffers from infirmity and that the

'Tribunal' had dismissed the IA on the pretext that the

Appellant/Application is neither the Petitioner not the Respondent in

any of the proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and

further that the impugned order proceeded to observe that the

Appellant/Applicant/2nd Respondent was seeking permission to file

proceedings under C.R.P.(PD) No.480/2020 as part of this application

is irrelevant.

The prime contention advanced on behalf of the Appellant is that

the 'Tribunal' without considering the documents placed by the

Appellant/Applicant as the same pertains to the very subject matter of

the TCP/102/2016 before the Tribunal, had passed the impugned

order and on this score alone the said order is liable to be set aside in

the interest of justice.

3

The other submission projected on the side of the Appellant is

that if the documents in question are brought on record, no harm or

prejudice would be caused to the Respondent.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Applicant contends that

if the said documents are not brought on record, an irreparable loss

and injury would be caused to the Appellant/applicant.

It is not in dispute that the Appellant/Applicant/2nd respondent

and the Respondent who had entered into a MOU between them has a

serious dispute and because of the dispute, the same had culminated

in filing a suit in OS No.14/2020 on the file of Learned District. Judge,

Salem seeking payment of the Rs.6/- crores with interest by the

Appellant/Applicant from the Respondent.

On 17.11.2018 the Respondents filed 'Rejoinder' before the

'Tribunal' in TCP/102/2016 had stated that a sum of Rs.6 crore has

nothing to do with the subject matter of this Company Petition.

In view of the fact that the Company is neither an

Appellant/Petitioner nor figured as Respondent in any of the proceeding

pending before the Hon'ble High Court in CRP(PD) NO.480/2020 the

Tribunal has rightly dismissed the IA/1340/IB/2020 in TCP/102/2016

by passing the impugned order and the same is held by this Tribunal

as one free from any legal flaws. Viewed in that perspective, the

Company Appeal (AT)(CH) No.42/2021 fails and accordingly the Appeal

is dismissed. No costs.

4

Connected pending IA, if any is closed.

(Justice M. Venugopal) Member (Judicial)

(Mr Kanthi Narahari) Member (Technical) Bm/manu 5