Narendar Kumar Bhoot vs Naval Kumar Bhoot
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 02 of 2021
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An order passed against a person who was neither a party to the proceedings nor given notice of them, and which affects that person's office and status, is contrary to the principles of natural justice and cannot stand; it is liable to be set aside in its entirety with all its consequential effects. Where an impugned order has been passed without impleading and hearing an affected party, the appellate authority may set it aside and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after affording the affected parties adequate opportunity of hearing, without thereby examining the merits of the underlying case.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Narendra Kumar Bhoot ...Appellant
Vs.
Naval Kumar Bhoot & Ors. ...Respondents
Present:
For Appellant: Mr. Anuj Tiwari, Mr. Rahul Kumar, Ms. Monika,
Advocates
For Respondents: Mr. Ankit Vashisht, Advocate
ORDER
(HYBRID MODE)
10.09.2024: This appeal is against the impugned order dated
15.12.2020 in CP No. 3852/2019 wherein the following relief was sought:-
"a. To declare Sri Santosh Kumar Bhoot (DIN: 00759296)
and Shri Narendra Kumar Bhoot (DIN: 00759185) as
disqualified director under Section 164(2)(a) and has
vacated their office under Section 167 of the Companies
Act, 2013.
b. To appoint the Applicant, Navalkumar Bhoot (DIN:
00759224) and Shri Vishnu Prasad Sankle (DIN: 1 Company Appeal (AT) No. 02 of 2021 & I.A. No. 1256 of 2021 07895719) or any other two independent persons as
Directors of the Respondent No.3 as this Hon'ble Tribunal
may deem proper:
c. To give necessary directions to respondent nos. 1 and 2
to give effect to the orders of this Hon'ble Tribunal;
d. To direct the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to take on
record any filing of Forms if filed by Shri Santosh Kumar
Bhoot (DIN: 00759296) and Shri Narendra Kumar Bhoot
(DIN: 00759185) as they are disqualified directors and have
vacated their office:
e. To pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal
may deem expedient".
2. Admittedly, the Appellants viz. Mr. Santosh Kumar and Mr. Narendra Kumar
were not parties in CP No. 3852/2019 and admittedly, no notice was sent to them.
The impugned order requires ROC to disqualify both of them u/s 164(2)(a) and to
vacate their office u/s 167 of the Companies Act, 2013. Further, vide the impugned
order the Respondents were appointed as Directors.
3. It is the submission, the order is against the principles of natural justice since
was passed against the Appellant without making him the party in the Company
Petition and without any notice given to him. 2 Company Appeal (AT) No. 02 of 2021 & I.A. No. 1256 of 2021
4. We are in full agreement with the contention of the Learned Counsel for the
Appellant in so far as impugned order is passed against the principles of natural
justice. The impugned order is set aside consequently with all its implications.
However, this order shall not preclude the Respondents to seek amendments in the
company petition to implead parties thereof. The matter is remanded to the Ld. NCLT
to proceed further. It is clarified that we have not examined the merits of the case. Ld.
NCLT may expeditiously decide the petition after giving adequate opportunity of
hearing to the Appellants herein.
5. Appeal disposed of in terms of above. Pending applications are also disposed
of.
[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)
[Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical)
ss/kam
3 Company Appeal (AT) No. 02 of 2021 & I.A. No. 1256 of 2021
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