Mobiotics It Solution Private Limited vs Anuraj Ennai

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.18/2025 (IA Nos.239 & 435/2025) In the matter of: M/s. Mobiotics IT Solution Private Limited, Represented by its Authorized Representative, Mr. Tej Pratap, Having its Registered Office at: J-403, Springfields Apartment, Sarjapur Road, Bellandur Gate, Bangalore, Karnataka - 560 102. ...Appellant V Mr. Anuraj Ennai, Aged about 47 years, S/o Shri. Krishnan Ennai, Residing at 4036, Sobha Iris, Devarabeesanahalli, Outer Ring Road, Bangalore, Karnataka - 560 103. ...Respondent No.1

The Registrar, National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Raheja Towers, M.G. Road, Bengaluru. ...Respondent No.2

Present : For Appellant : Mr. Pramod Nair, Senior Advocate For Mr. Santosh Muttalli, Mr. Brilian Marak, Advocates For Respondents : Mr. Aakash Sherwal, Advocate for R1

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 19.03.2025:

Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. The Learned Counsel for the

Appellant questions the Impugned Order of 13.09.2024, as it has been

rendered in CA No.124/BB/2023 in CP(IB) No.123/BB/2023, where the

Learned NCLT had issued directions, as contained in para 3 of the Impugned

Comp. App. (AT) (CH) No.18/2025 Page 1 of 3 Order, directing the Appellant to disclose the records as detailed therein with

regards to the customer contract, bank, accounts, records, books, papers,

vouchers etc. The argument of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that

at the stage, when the Interlocutory Application being CA No.124/BB/2023,

was being considered by the NCLT, Bengaluru, the Appellant had raised an

objection by filing the same with regard to the propriety of the application

CA No.124/BB/2023 and that the same has not been considered, nor any

finding has been recorded on the same, and therefore Impugned Order

happens to be perverse and contrary to record, having been passed without

application of mind in view of the fact that no finding on the objection thus

raised by the Appellant has been recorded in the said order.

The contentions of Appellant that the Impugned Order suffers from

the vices of the non-consideration of the implications of Section 94 of the

Companies Act, 2013, is being opposed by the Respondent's Counsel on the

ground that the said objection with regards to the implication of Section 94

of the Companies Act, was not a ground taken in the objection to the

Company Petition. Be that as it may, since the implication of Section 94 of

the Companies Act, happens to be a purely a legal question, it can be raised

at any stage including the appellate stage, which is the continuation of

proceedings from the Tribunal.

Comp. App. (AT) (CH) No.18/2025 Page 2 of 3

It is seen that the impugned order does not record any finding on the

merits of the matter after considering the objection. Exclusively on this

account, the Impugned Order would stand quashed and the matter is remitted

back to the NCLT, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru, to reconsider the

application CA No.124/BB/2023, exclusively on its own merits, after

considering the rival contentions, particularly in the context of the objection

raised by the Appellant and the implication of Section 94. It is hoped and

trusted that the Learned NCLT, is requested make all endeavours to decide

the aforesaid application, as expeditiously as possible but not later than three

weeks from the date of presentation of the Certified Copy of this order.

Subject to the aforesaid the Comp App (AT) (CH) No.18/2025 would stand

allowed and the Impugned Order would hereby stand quashed.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Jatindranath Swain] Member (Technical) VG/TM/MS

Comp. App. (AT) (CH) No.18/2025 Page 3 of 3