Rajeev Satpal Lakhanpal & Others vs Taashee Linux Services Private Limited

IN THE MATTER OF: Rajeev Satpal Lakhanpal S/O Satpal Kundanlal Lakhanpal R/O H.No. 16-4-169, 101, First Floor, Nameera Plaza, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, Telangana ... Appellant Vs Taashee Linux Services Private Limited Having Its Registered Office At: 6-3-252/2, 5th Floor 501, 502, 503, Workafella Banjara Hills Main Road Erramanzil, Hyderabad Telangana -500004

Represented By:

Abhishek Datt Managing Director Taashee Linux Services Private Limited S/O Yogesh Datt R/O A-1902, Apana Sarovar Grande Nallagandl Gachibowli Road Serilingampally, Hyderabad Telangana - 500019 ... Respondent Present: For Appellant : Mr. M Sameer Hussain

CA (AT) (CH) No. 77/2024 Page 1 of 6 ORDER

(HYBRID MODE)

22.11.2024:

1. The Appellant is the Respondent to the proceedings of

CP No. 49/241/HDB/2021, wherein he had preferred an application being

IA (CA)129/2024, praying for supply of the certified copies of the un-marked

Photocopy of the documents which were filed in the Company Petition and the

same has been rejected.

2. In the proceedings of Company Petition, drawn under Section 241 of

Companies Act 2013, by the Respondent to the Appeal, it is alleged by the

Appellant, that the Company Petition booklet accompanied with it certain

photocopies of the documents, on which the reliance was being placed by the

Respondent herein, in support of his Contention for the proceedings under

Section 241. Accordingly, he submitted that the documents thus placed on

record by way of photocopies, should be supplied to him, for the purposes of

raising of his defense in the Company Petition. Accordingly, he had filed IA

(CA) 129/2024 on 03.02.2024, praying for supplying with certified copies of

the main Company Petition along with all the annexures including photocopies

at the earliest, the Learned Tribunal on the said application has passed

following orders:

"IA (CA) 129/2024:

Learned Counsel for the applicant present physically.

CA (AT) (CH) No. 77/2024 Page 2 of 6 This being an application for issuance of Certified Copies of Company Petition.

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. According to the applicant their copy application vide CP No. 49/2021m is not been fully allowed by registry as Certified Copies of Annexures which are Photostat copies, was denied. Hence the present application. According to the registry the annexures for which Certified Copies are denied are un-marked Photostat Copies.

As there is no provision in NCLT Rules for issuance of Certified Copies for Photostat Copies which are un- marked, the prayer is rightly refused by the Registry. Therefore, the rejection of Certified Copies for un- marked Photostat Copies by the registry is sustained. Hence, the application is accordingly disposed of. All the IAs if any pending shall stands disposed of."

3. What has been argued by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that,

the partial rejection of his application being IA (CA) 129/2024, by denying to

supply the un-marked photocopies of the documents, filed in the Company

Petition, is arbitrary and even though the photocopies, are un-marked, certified

copies of the same should have been supplied to him. With the aforesaid

contentions, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant had referred to as to what

the certified copy would mean in the light of the definition of the certified copy

as it has been provided under the NCLT Rules, 2016. Particularly, he has

referred to the definition of certified copy given under Rule 2 (9) of NCLT

Rules of 2016, which prescribes as under:

CA (AT) (CH) No. 77/2024 Page 3 of 6

"2. Definitions. -

(9) "Certified" means in relation to a copy of a document as hereunder -

(a) certified as provided in section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; or

(b) certified as provided in section 6 of Information Technology Act, 2000; or

(c) certified copy issued by the Registrar of Companies under the Act;

(d) copy of document as may be a downloaded from any online portal prescribed under section 398 of the Act or a photo copy of the original pertaining to any company registered with the Office of the Registrar of Companies of the concerned State duly a certified by a legal practitioner [or a chartered accountant in practice or a cost accountant in practice or a company secretary in practice];"

4. In its literal meaning, the certified copy of the document as defined under

NCLT Rules of 2016, would mean of providing of a copy under Section 76 of

the Evidence Act, 1872, upon an application being filed and only upon

remittance of fee. The Section 76 of the Evidence Act, becomes relevant in the

context of, as to what a certified copy would mean. The definition of "certified"

and the "certified copy" as given under the Rules, will not be attracted in the

Instant appeal where the appellant seeks a certified copy of the unmarked

photo copy of the documents filed with the Appeal. The rules do not

contemplate, providing a certified copy of the photo copy of any document,

CA (AT) (CH) No. 77/2024 Page 4 of 6 which is filed by the petitioner to the company petition. It only provides for

that, the copy of an original document if it is filed in a Company Petition, that

could be supplied as a certified copy and no certified copy of the "unmarked

photocopy" of the document could be issued under Rule 2 (9) of the NCLT

Rules, 2016. The rationale behind the denial is that issue of a certified copy of

a photo copy of the documents on record of the Company Petition, filed by the

company petitioner, would be detrimental to the interest of the judicial

proceedings itself for the reason being that issue of the certified copy of an un-

marked photocopy of a document whose admissibility is yet to be considered,

after meeting the stipulations contemplated under Section 76 of the Evidence

Act, 1872, would mean that, it is an authentication of the said document, which

is a mere photocopy and which is yet to be established and proved under law

by the company petitioner, who has filed the same in the Company Petition. In

other words, if a certified copy of a photocopy or an un-marked copy of a

document filed in a Company Petition is provided, apart from the fact that, it is

not contemplated under law, it would amount to authentication by a court

created under law, of a document which is yet to be established by evidence

before court of law, to be an authentic document eligible to be read in evidence.

Further, under the Evidence Act, 1872, photocopy cannot be read in evidence,

which would also be one of the issues, to be borne in mind while dealing with

the request for supplying the certified copy of a photocopy or an un-marked

document on the records of the Company Petition.

CA (AT) (CH) No. 77/2024 Page 5 of 6

5. Hence, this Tribunal is of the view that the denial made by the Learned

Tribunal while rejecting the application being IA (CA) 129/2024, as preferred

in CP No. 49/241/HDB/2021, was not procedurally flawed in any manner.

Thus, no interference is called for, this Company Appeal lacks merit and the

same is accordingly dismissed.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

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

CA (AT) (CH) No. 77/2024 Page 6 of 6