Mohindra Kumar Setia & Anr vs Satguru Buildwell Pvt Limited & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 238 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, and in doing so it rests on the following principle: where the veracity of the facts underlying an interlocutory order cannot be verified on the record, and the question of whether the underlying resolution was genuinely passed remains disputed, the appropriate course is to remit the matter to the Tribunal below for hearing and an appropriate order at an early date, rather than to decide the disputed factual question on appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Mohindra Kumar Setia & Anr. ....Appellants
Vs.
Satguru Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents
Present: For Appellant:- Mr. Amol Vyas, Advocate. For Respondent:- Mr. Sagrika Joshi, Ms. Nivedita R. Sarda, Advocates.
ORDER
21.11.2022: The Appellants preferred the instant Appeal under Section
421 of the Companies Act, 2013 being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order
dated 03.12.2020 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (Jaipur Bench)
in IA No. 400/JPR/2019 in CP No. 146(ND)/2016 TA No. 23/2018 whereby and
whereunder the Application filed by the Respondent herein for extension of time
to conduct Annual General Meeting for the financial year ending 31.03.2019 was
allowed and the matter was directed to be listed on 21.01.2021.
2. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellants during the course of argument and in
his memo of appeal along with written submissions submitted that certified copy
of the Resolution which was filed with the RoC in Form GNL-1 by the
Respondent, which forms the basis of the impugned order is a forged and
fabricated documents as the said resolution was not on the agenda list nor the
same was discussed in the Board Meeting dated 01.09.2019 and no such
resolution was ever passed, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained -2-
in the eye of law, the impugned order is fit to be set aside. Further, he relied on
a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "A.V. Papayya
Sastry and Ors. Vs. Government of A.P. and Ors. reported in
MANU/SC/1214/2007" wherein paragraph 19 held as follows:
"19. Now, it is well settled principle of law that if any judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law, before three centuries, Chief Justice Edward Coke proclaimed;
Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal.
It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. Such a judgment, decree or order by the first Court or by the final Court has to be treated as nullity by every Court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings."
3. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondents during the course of argument and
in his memo of appeal along with written submissions submitted that the Annual
general Meeting which was held on 24.12.2020 pursuant to the directions of the
Tribunal, the Appellant have tendered the Annual General Meeting and report
of the Chairman of the meeting has been subsequently filed before the Tribunal
discrepancies were recorded during the meeting and no objections were raised
by the Appellants to the said report now they are realising that it is a forged and
fabricated document. He further submitted that the main application is still -3-
pending before the Tribunal and the next date of hearing is fixed in the month of
December, 2022.
4. After hearing the parties, the Impugned order dated 03.12.2020 passed by
the National Company Law Tribunal (Jaipur Bench) in IA No. 400/JPR/2019 in
CP No. 146(ND)/2016 TA No. 23/2018 is hereby set aside and the matter is
remitted back to the National Company Law Tribunal (Jaipur Bench) with a
request to hear the parties herein and pass appropriate orders at an early date
in view of the fact mentioned in para 12 of the impugned order, the Tribunal
discussed the issue regarding entire veracity of this fact cannot be verified
without rewinding back to the actual time and site of the meeting and any errors
or omissions in recording of minutes of the meeting cannot be ascertained in this
situation.
With these observations, the instant Appeal is disposed of.
5. Registry to upload the order on the website of this Appellate Tribunal and
send the copy of this order to the National Company Law Tribunal (Jaipur Bench)
forthwith.
[Justice Anant Bijay Singh] Member (Judicial)
[Ms. Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical)
R.N./Kam./
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free