Mr. Surojit Kumar, Mr.Lakhi Chand And ... vs Registrar Of Companies, Kolkata
- CitationCompany Appeal [AT) No. 29 and 30 of 2016
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appeal seeks interim relief and substantive relief only, but the impugned order that the appeal purports to challenge is not itself under challenge, the appeal is incomplete and is liable to be dismissed. Where the appellate tribunal is not satisfied that the appeal raises any question of law that can be determined without a challenge to the order that is the subject of the proceedings, it will decline to entertain the appeal. Liberty to challenge the underlying order, together with a petition for condonation of any delay, is the appropriate course where the appellant wishes to pursue the matter and the defect in the appeal is one of incompleteness.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. The other Company Appeal No. 30 of 2016 has been preferred by the appellants for similar relief, which roads as follows:
"an view of the facts mentioned in para 7 above, fucts in
wsue and questions of law set out i Pore 8, the Appellants
prays for the folowing reliefs}:
fa} Stay of operation of Order dated G1' August 2016;
ib} Stay of all further proceedings against the Appellants in respect af the alleged violations of Section 2277/3) of the Companies Act 1956 as mentioned in the Compenunding
Appliowions oy relatian to Prancal Statement af Kiev
Pomance Ltd. from SI8 March 201] to 31% Morch 2034;
fe} An Order of injunction restraming the. Ret and/ar MCA from taking steps or further steps on the basis of the impugned Onier dated 31s August £016,
id) The Compounding Applications fled by the Appellants being the DNrectars of the Company u/s 217{S)} of the companies Act 2856 in respect of the Pirancial Statement of the Company as at 318 March ROT] toe Sis March 2014 be considered only under the provisions of Companies Act 79.56;
ie] The Compounding Amount in respect of Compounding Applications of the Appellants for alleged vielation af Section: 2177/0) of the Companies Act 1966 in reypect of the Financial Statement ofthe Company as at GI March O071 to Ale Merch 2014 be consalered in. RGAt of the provisions contained im Companies Act 1956;
i Circular issued by MCA on 4° April 2014 be considered while hearing of the Appen! in respect af the Compounding Applications af the Appeliania um respect af Financial Statement af Kiev Minunece Lid. as af GIS March 202] to 8is' Merch 2014;
ig) Ad-intevim Order in terms of prayers aboue,
th) Such further or other Order or Orders be passed and/or a direction or directions be given as tins Hon ble Appellate Myibunal may deem fi & proper."
3. Dn 1&h December 2016 when the matter was taken up, the Court
noticed that in the Index wherein the appellant has enclased a so called
eopy of the Gmpugned Order dated $0 September 2016 passec fan CUP. 3120/2015, which reads as follows: -
"id. Py CS is present for the qnphcants. Ady. Anil Murarke, Pro OS representing the agphcanis submitted that compounding application wader Section
DUS(3Nb) of the Companies Act, 1956 was heard and
decided on S* Auguat S016. The Pr. CS has stated that his apnlication for review of the order be admitted and the error i the order be rectified.
The gnpugned order hus been passed on merit. NOLT does nof have any power to nevieu ls ander, However, if amplcanis Rave any gmevance they may prefer appedl before the anpropriate Court. The application for review is not maintamadble, hence dismissed."
8. The same very Crder alleged to have been impugned in the analogous appeal.
B, Barber the appellanis were alowed ome toa fle the copy of the Order dated 5b August 2016 which they wanted for review.
6 'Two copies of the Order both dated S® Auguat 2016 have been fled, ane
massed in CLP. No. 119 of 2G15 end the other passed in CLP.Ne, 120 af QOS. : }
os
From the perusal of both the Orders dated St August 2016 we find that on two separate apphecatians both under Section 621 A of the Companies Act 1988, the NCLT, Kolkata Bench were Med for com pounding offence. Therein lesser periaity hes been imposed. However, both the Orders dated 56 August 2016 are not under challenges.
8. m the aforesaid background and as no substantive relief has been scught for im both the appeals aa quoted above, which are interim in nature or a question of law raised which can be determined only on challenge of the
Orders dated SS August 2015, we find no reason to entertain these owa inoomplete appeals. Accordingly, both Company Appeal No. 29 of S016 and Company Appeal No. SO of $016 are dismissed.
9. However, Nberty is given to the appellants to challenge the Orders dared
te
NCLT, Nelkata Bench if they are aggrieved, slong with petition for condonation
af delay if any, caplaininig the delay.
iJustios S.J. Mukhopacdhayal
CHAT eETSOn
iMr. Balvinder Singh} Member (Technical)
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