Vasantha Mills Limited vs /

Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on :03.05.2021 Pronounced on : 25.05.2021

Coram:

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN

Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

Comp.Appeal No.5 of 2016:

Vasantha Mills Limited, Cheran Towers, Arts College Road, Coimbatore 641 018. ..Appellant

/versus/

1.Nandakumar Athappan

2.M/s Cheran Enterprises Private Limited, Cheran Towers, Arts College Road, Coimbatore 641 018.

3.CG Holdings Private Limited,

1/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

No.19, Raja Annamalai Building, Marshalls Road.

4.Kangeyam Cheniappa Palanisamy, R/o No.322, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore 641 002.

5.Cherran Properties Limited, Cheran Towers, Arts College Road, Coimbatore 641 018.

6.State Bank of India, Erode Main Branch Road, Erode 638 001. .. Respondents

Prayer: Company Appeal has been filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 to setaside the order of the Hon'ble Company Law Board, Additional Principal Bench, Chennai dated 30.12.2015 made in C.A.No.2 of 2015 in E.P.No.35 of 2011 in C.P.No.65 of 2005.

For Appellant :Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for M/s Waraon and Sai Rams

For Respondents :Mr.J.Sivanadaraj for R1 Mr.Ramakrishnan, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Arjunsuresh for R3

--------

2/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

Comp.Appeal No.6 of 2016:

Vasantha Mills Limited, Cheran Towers, Arts College Road, Coimbatore 641 018. ..Appellant

/versus/

1.O.R.E.Holdings Limited, IFS Court, Twenty Eight, Cybercity, Ebene, Mauritius.

2.M/s Cheran Enterprises Private Limited, Cheran Towers, Arts College Road, Coimbatore 641 018.

3.CG Holdings Private Limited, No.19, Raja Annamalai Building, Marshalls Road.

4.Kangeyam Cheniappa Palanisamy, R/o No.322, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore 641 002.

5.Cherran Properties Limited, Cheran Towers, Arts College Road,

3/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

Coimbatore 641 018.

6.Nandakumar Athappan

7.Ramasamy Athappan

8.6State Bank of India, Erode Main Branch Road, Erode 638 001. .. Respondents

Prayer: Company Appeal has been filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 to setaside the order of the Hon'ble Company Law Board, Additional Principal Bench, Chennai dated 30.12.2015 made in C.A.No.2 of 2015 in E.P.No.36 of 2011 in C.P.No.76 of 2005.

For Appellant :Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for M/s Waraon and Sai Rams

For Respondents :Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Gowtham Kumar for R1 Mr.J.Sivanandaraj for R6 to R7 Mr.Ramakrishnan, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Arjunsuresh

--------

4/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

Comp.Appeal No.7 of 2016: Vasantha Mills Limited, Cheran Towers, Arts College Road, Coimbatore 641 018. ..Appellant

/versus/

1.Nandakumar Athappan

2.M/s Cheran Enterprises Private Limited, Cheran Towers, Arts College Road, Coimbatore 641 018.

3.CG Holdings Private Limited, No.19, Raja Annamalai Building, Marshalls Road.

4.Kangeyam Cheniappa Palanisamy, R/o No.322, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore-641 002.

5.Cherran Properties Limited, Cheran Towers, Arts College Road, Coimbatore 641 018.

6.State Bank of India, Erode Main Branch Road, Erode 638 001. .. Respondents

5/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

Prayer: Company Appeal has been filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 to setaside the order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the Company Law Board, Additional Principal Bench, Chennai in E.P.No.35 of 2011.

For Appellant :Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for M/s Waraon and Sai Rams

For Respondents :Mr.J.Sivanandaraj for R1 Mr.Ramakrishnan, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Arjunsuresh for R3 --------

Comp.Appeal No.8 of 2016:

Vasantha Mills Limited, Cheran Towers, Arts College Road, Coimbatore 641 018. ..Appellant

/versus/

1.O.R.E.Holdings Limited, IFS Court, Twenty Eight, Cybercity, Ebene, Mauritius.

2.M/s Cheran Enterprises Private Limited, Cheran Towers, Arts College Road,

6/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

Coimbatore 641 018.

3.CG Holdings Private Limited, No.19, Raja Annamalai Building, Marshalls Road.

4.Kangeyam Cheniappa Palanisamy, R/o No.322, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore-641 002.

5.Cherran Properties Limited, Cheran Towers, Arts College Road, Coimbatore 641 018.

6.Nandakumar Athappan

7.Ramasamy Athappan

8.State Bank of India, Erode Main Road, Erode 638 001. .. Respondents

Prayer: Company Appeal has been filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 to setaside the order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the Company Law Board, Additional Principal Bench, Chennai in E.P.No.36 of 2011 in C.P.No.76 of 2005.

For Appellant :Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for M/s Waraon and Sai Rams

7/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

For Respondents :Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Gowthamkumar for R1 Mr.J.Sivanandaraj for R6 and R7 Mr.Ramakrishnan, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Arjun Suresh for R3 --------

Comp.Appeal No.9 of 2016:

1.C G Holding Pvt.Ltd., No.19, Raja Annamalai Building, Marshalls Road, Chennai.

2.Kangayem Cheniappa Palanisamy .. Appellants

/versus/

1.O.R.E.Holdings Pvt.Ltd., 3 Floor, Les Cascades, Edith Cavell Street, Port Louis, Mauritius.

2.M/s Cheran Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Cheran Towers, Arts College Road, Coimbatore 641 018.

8/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

3.Cheran Properties Limited, Cheran Towers, Arts College Road, Coimbatore 641 018.

4.Vasantha Mills Ltd., Cheran Towers, Arts College Road, Coimbatore 641 018.

5.Nandakumar Athappan

6.Ramasamy Athappan

7.State Bank of India, Erode Main Branch Road, Erode 638 001. .. Respondents

Prayer: Company Appeal has been filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 to set aside the order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the Company Law Board, Additional Prinicpal Bench, Chennai in E.P.No.36 of 2011 in C.P.No.76 of 2005.

For Appellants :Mr.Ramakrishnan, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Arjun Suresh

For Respondents :Mr.J.Sivanandaraj for R5, R6 Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, Senior Counsel for M/s Waraon and Sai Rams for R4 Mr.ARL.Sundaresh, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Gowthamkumar for R1

9/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

Comp.Appeal No.10 of 2016:

1.CG Holdings Pvt.Ltd., No.19, Raja Annamalai Building, Marshalls Road, Chennai.

2.Kangayem Cheniappa Palanisamy R/o No.322 Thadagam Road, Coimbatore 641 002. .. Appellants

/versus/

1.Nandakumar Athappan

2.M/s Cheran Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., Cheran Towers, Arts College Road, Coimbatore 641 018.

3.Cheran Properties Ltd., Cheran Towers, Arts College Road, Coimbatore 641 018.

4.Vasantha Mills ltd., Cheran Towers, Arts College Road, Coimbatore 641 018.

10/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

5.State Bank of India, Erode Main Branch Road, Erode 638 001. .. Respondents

Prayer: Company Appeal has been filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 to set aside the order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the Company Law Board, Additional Principal Bench, Chennai in E.P.No.35 of 2011 in E.P.No.65 of 2005.

For Appellants :Mr.V.Ramakrishnan, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Arjun Suresh

For Respondents :Mr.J.Sivanandaraj for R1 Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for M/s Waraon and Sai Rams for R4 ------- COMMON JUDGMENT

(The case has been heard through Video Conferencing)

Prelude:

The root and genesis of these 6 Company Appeals is the two company

petitions viz C.P.No.65/2005 and C.P.No.76/2005 filed under Sections 397,

398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging oppression and mis-

management in respect of M/s Cheran Enterprises Private Limited Company

11/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

incorporated on 12/11/2003, under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956.

2.In these batch of Company Appeals, the core dispute is the

execution order passed by the Company Law Board in respect of about 25

acres of land ( 17.15 acres + 7.80 acres ) held by Vasantha Mills Limited,

one of the subsidiary company of Cheran Enterprises Private Limited.

3.Main parties to the litigation and their interest/claim:

Cheran Enterprises Private Limited ( “CEPL” in short): This

company was incorporated on 12/11/2003 with authorised capital of Rs.10

crores. The authorised capital was increased to Rs.28 crores after the share

purchase agreement dated 13/01/2004, entered between C.G.Holdings and

CEPL. 45% of the shares issued, subscribed and paid up capital of CEPL

held by CG Holdings Pvt. Limited. 45% of the share issued, subscribed and

paid up capital of CEPL held by ORE Holdings Limited. 10% of the share

issued, subscribed and paid up capital of CEPL held by Athappan. In

12/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

respect of this company, the exit scheme was ordered and executed by CLB.

The order passed in the execution petitions is the subject matter of these

appeals.

C.G.Holdings Private Limited (‘CG Holdings’ in short):

Incorporated on 09/01/2004. K.C.Palanisamy (in short “KCP”) is the

Director and Authorised Signatory of this company. It holds 45% paid up

capital in CEPL. To frame an exit scheme C.P.No.65/2005 filed by

C.G.Holdings and K.C.Palanisamy.

Cheran Properties Limited (‘CPL’ in short): A company promoted

by KCP on acquiring the controlling interest in M/s Vasantha Mills Limited.

A subsidiary company of CEPL. In this company, CEPL is holding

99.999% of the issued and subscribed capital. M/s Vasantha Mills Limited

and M/s CG holdings Private Limited each hold one share. Remaining 4

shares are held by the other companies controlled by KCP.

13/89 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

Vasantha Mills Limited ( ‘VML’ in short) : This company was

incorporated in the year 1929. It became a sick and went under the scanner

of BIFR in the year 1985. K.C.Palanisamy and his family members

presented a scheme of rehabilitation and acquired the assets and liabilities

of Vasantha Mills Limited. It is a subsidiary company of CEPL. Pursuant to

the Joint Venture Agreement dated 30/01/2004 between KCP, N.Athappan,

CG Holdings, CEPL, ORE Holdings, CPL and VML , the constitution of the

share holdings in this company became: CEPL – 34.66% ; CPL – 28.19% ;

N.Athappan – 16.77% ; and C G Holdings – 16.32% .

ORE Holding Limited ( ‘O.R.E’ in short): A company incorporated

as per law in force at Mauritius. It is wholly owned subsidiary of Odyssy

America Reinsurance Company (OARC) incorporated in the State of

Connecticut, USA. Pursuant to the Joint venture agreement dated

30/01/2004 ORE invested Rs.75 crores in the form of equity in CEPL to get

through 45% direct stake in CEPL and indirectly over it subsidiaries namely

14/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

CPL and VML.

ORE is the petitioner in C.P.No.76/2005 filed for an order of

investigative audit to determine the amount misappropriated, misapplied or

diverted by C.G.Holdings and KCP alleging mismanagement and

misappropriation and the Petitioner in E.P.No.36/2011 before CLB filed to

execute the common order passed in their petition in C.P.No.76/2005 and

C.P.No.65/2005 filed by CG Holdings and KCP.

Nandakumar Athappan: NRI invested Rs.4 crores in CEPL and its

subsidiaries. As per the share purchase agreement dated 13/01/2004 and

under the Joint Venture Agreement dated 30/01/2004, he holds 10% share

in CEPL. He is the petitioner in E.P.No.35/2011 before the CLB to execute

the order passed in C.P.No.65/2005 and C.P.No.76/2005.

15/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

K.C.Palanisamy (‘KCP’ in short): Promotor of CPL and CEPL filed

C.P.No.65/2005 along with CG Holdings Private Limited for the relief to

formulate a scheme of exit of the 2nd respondent ( ORE Holdings ) alleging

oppression. The 3rd respondent in C.P.No.76/2005 filed by ORE Holdings

for an order of investigative audit to determine the amount misappropriated,

misapplied or diverted by C.G.Holdings and KCP alleging mismanagement

and misappropriation.

4. Journey of the litigation:

KCP, who took control of the sick company VML offering

rehabilitation proposal to BIFR and the promoter of CPL was in need of

fund to promote the lands held by VML and CPL. During the year 2003,

ORE and N.Athappan got introduced to KCP and offered to arrange funds

provided, KCP offers shares in VML, CPL and certain other companies

controlled by KCP. After negotiation, a joint Venture Agreement was

16/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

entered between the parties on 30/01/2004. Before that, CEPL was

incorporated on 12/11/2003. Share purchase agreement was entered on

13/01/2004. Accordingly, CG Holdings sold its 80% share in CPL and

17.4% share in VML to CEPL. In consideration, 45% shares in CEPL was

allotted to CG Holdings. Athappan, who infused Rs.4 crores, sold his

holdings in CPL and VML in exchange of 10% share in CEPL. ORE

infused Rs.75 crores and was allotted 45% of share in CEPL. Thus, in CEPL

the share holdings of the respective parties was as below:-

CG Holdings : 45% ; ORE 45% ; and N.Athappan 10%.

Soon thereafter, misunderstanding arose between the share holders. CG

Holdings and KCP as its Director filed C.P.No.65/2005 alleging that ORE

made only the initial funding of Rs.75 crores, but failed to bring the

promised fund of Rs.300 crores. Due to the said failure, CEPL had not

carried on any business ever since its incorporation. ORE and N.Athappan

on the strength of their holding in CEPL constituting 55% and on their

majority strength in the Board of CEPL, are attempting to usurp CEPL from

17/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

KCP, which would imply taking control of the VML and CPL also. ORE by

their oppressive conduct attempting to arm twist KCP to accede to its unjust

demand and prayed for a scheme of exit.

5.The relief sought in C.P.No.65/2005 are :-

(a) to declare that the Board Meeting of CEPL held on 21/22.09.2005

and the resolutions passed therein are null and void and not binding on the

petitioners or CEPL and consequently, an order of permanent injunction

restraining CEPL from giving effect to any of the resolutions purported to

have been passed at the said Board Meeting;

(b) to amend the Articles of Association of CEPL to include articles

to the effect that so long as C.G. Holdings holds shares in CEPL, no policy

decision to increase the authorised capital, sale, disposal or encumbrances

of the investments in shares in the subsidiaries be taken by CEPL in general

meeting, without the affirmative vote of C.G. Holdings;

(c) to amend the Articles of Association of CEPL to include an

18/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

Article that so long as C.G. Holdings has its nominee on the Board as a

Director no quorum for any meeting of the Board of Directors would be

possible without the presence of such a nominee;

(d) to restrain the respondents 3 & 4 or any other nominee of the

respondents 2 & 5 from proceeding with the holding of the Board of

Directors meeting on 12.11.2005 or any other subsequent date;

(e) to appoint an independent valuer to assess the value of CEPL and

loss suffered by it on account of the breach committed by respondent Nos. 2

& 6 under the Joint Venture Agreement and surcharge respondents 2 to 6

who have acted in concert in CEPL for having caused loss, under Schedule

XI of the Act;

(f) to formulate a scheme/method of exit of the second respondent

from CEPL after taking into account the loss occasioned to CEPL.

6.At the same time, ORE alleging that KCP by misrepresentation

induced ORE to enter into Joint Venture Agreement and made ORE to

19/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

invest Rs.75 crores. Instead of investing the company (CEPL) fund for

development of and sale of hotels and IT parks as agreed, divested the fund

to discharge the liabilities of his subsidiary companies. Minutes of the

Board meeting were fabricated by KCP to enable siphoning of CEPL fund.

Listing out the diversion of fund, misapplication of company (CEPL) fund

and material breach of Joint Venture Agreement C.P.No.76/2005 was filed

by ORE Holding Company.

7.The relief sought in CP 76/2005 are:-

(i) to remove KCP from the office of Director, Chief Executive

Officer and Managing Director of CEPL;

(ii) to restrain KCP and C.G. Holdings, and/or any nominees of CG

Holdings from in any manner acting on behalf of CEPL;

(iii) to constitute a Board of Management for CEPL, consisting of

independent Directors and the nominee of ORE;

(iv) to direct the CEPL to give effect to all resolutions passed by

20/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

CEPL in its meeting held on 12.11.2005;

(v) to set aside all contracts entered by or on behalf of the subsidiaries

in violation of the provisions of the Joint Venture Agreement;

(vi) to direct the registered office of CEPL and the subsidiaries to be

shifted to Chennai;

(vii) to call for all and inspect all statutory records, registers, financial

statements, title deeds to properties of CEPL and the subsidiaries;

(viii) to direct KCP to render true and faithful accounts of CEPL and

the subsidiaries since their inception;

(ix) to order an investigative audit to determine the amounts

misappropriated, misapplied or diverted by C.G. Holdings and KCP; and

(x) to direct C.G. Holdings and KCP to return to CEPL all moveable

and Immovable assets, funds, accounts, securities and other properties of

CEPL misapplied, misappropriated or diverted by them.

21/89 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

8.The Company Law Board (CLB) heard both the petitions together

since the charges and grievances were in relation to the affairs of the one

and the same company namely CEPL. Passed a detailed order on

13/08/2008. The operative portion of the said order reads as follow:-

“ In view of the foregoing conclusions and in exercise of the powers under Sections 397 & 398 read with Section 402 and with a view to bringing to an end the grievances of CG Holdings, KCP, ORE and Athappan, the following order is passed:

“CEPL shall return a sum of Rs. 75 crores and Rs. 4 crores invested by ORE and Athappan respectively, together with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of investment till the date of repayment within a period of 12 months in one or more instalments, commencing from 01.11.2008. While making the payment CEPL, CG Holdings and KCP shall ensure that at least 25% of the amount due is paid in every quarter.

CEPL, CG. Holdings and KCP are at liberty to make use of the fixed deposit held by CEPL with SBI, Erode Main Branch, free of any liens or encumbrances towards refund of the investments of ORE and Athappan. VML shall not alienate or sell any of its Immovable properties till full payment is made to ORE, in terms of this order.

In the event of any failure to make the repayment within the specified time, CEPL,

22/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

CG Holdings, KCP and VML will duly convey the immovable properties of VML, namely, 17.15 acres of land in favour of ORE and 7.80 acres of land in favour of Athappan by executing and registering necessary deeds of conveyance in strict compliance with all applicable law , as consideration for reduction of capital and surrender of the shares of ORE and Athappan, upon which ORE as well as Athappan will deliver the share certificates and blank transfer forms in respect of their holdings in CEPL and the subsidiaries, if any, in favour of CG Holdings and KCP. CEPL is consequently authorized to reduce its share capital and in the meantime, operation of the impugned agreements is suspended, to expedite and ensure due completion of the modalities of exit by ORE and Athappan, thereby, bringing to an end the acts complained of in the present proceedings.

CEPL shall ensure necessary statutory compliances till the whole process, in accordance with the aforesaid directions, is properly completed. The parties are at liberty to apply in the event of any difficulty in implementation of the smooth exist of ORE and Athappan from CEPL.”

9.On considering the allegations and grievances made against each

other, the CLB passed the above order framing a scheme for smooth exit

23/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

and gaveliberty to the parties to approach CLB in case of any difficulty in

implementing the order.

10.C.G.Holdings Pvt. Limited and K.C.Palanisamy, the petitioners in

C.P.No.65/2005 filed C.A.No.154/2005 under Regulation 44 of the

Company Law Board Regulations, alleging that ORE Holdings and

N.Athappan trying to frustrate the implementation of the order by giving

false complaint to the police. Due to the representation given to the Bank,

they are prevented them from dealing with the Fixed Deposit with SBI,

Erode Branch. Therefore, prayed for restrain order and permission to induct

new Directors for CEPL.

11.O.R.E Holdings Limited, the petitioner in C.P.No.76/2005 filed

C.A.No.155/2005 seeking clarification and further directions from CLB.

Particularly, pointing out that being a company incorporated at Mauritius,

any transfer of funds from a resident to a non resident should be in

24/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

compliance of the provisions of FEMA. As per the law in force, a company

incorporated outside India not permitted to hold immovable property in

India. Therefore, sought for order to permit the O.R.E to cause conveyance

of the property to a willing buyer and receive the proceeds. Further, prayed

for an order to apportion the money lying in the Fixed Deposit with SBI,

Erode Branch between O.R.E and N. Athappan in the ratio of 75:4

12.Taking note of the difficulties brought out by the parties through

the above two applications viz C.A.No.154 and 155 of 2005, CLB by its

order dated 03/08/2009, modified the earlier order dated 13/08/2008

directing Vasantha Mills Limited to convey the properties to nominee of

ORE. Directed SBI, Erode Branch to release 50% of the CEPL’s money to

ORE and N.Athappan in the ratio of 75:4 and the remaining 50% to

C.G.Holdings and K.C.Palanisamy.

25/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

13.Challenging the above order of CLB dated 03/08/2009, O.R.E

Holdings filed Company Appeals: 21 and 29 of 2009. N.Athappan and

R.Athappan filed Company Appeals : 25 and 26 of 2009. C.G.Holdings and

K.C.Palanisamy preferred Company Appeal No.27/2009. In these batch of

Company Appeals, the Division Bench of this Court formulated questions

of law and answered vide common order dated 05/08/2011.

14.The Division Bench declared the direction permitting the

K.C.Palanisamy and C.G.Holding to withdraw 50% of the amount and

direction to ORE and Athappan to deposit their share certificate are not

supported by any reasons, evidence or materials. The order dated

03/08/2009 virtually nullifies the earlier order. Therefore, the High Court

set aside the permission granted to C.G.Holdings and K.C.Palanisamy to

deal with 50% of the amount lying in SBI, Erode Branch. Further clarified

that, in the event of remote need, the properties of Vasantha Mills Limited

i.e. 17.5 acres are to be conveyed to ORE and 7.80 acres to Athappan.

26/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

O.R.E being a non-resident Company, is not permitted to hold immovable

properties in India, however, subject to approval/permission to be obtained

by ORE from the competent authority such transfer to be made.

15.As a result, the Company Appeal Nos.21 and 29 of 2009 preferred

by ORE and Company Appeal Nos.25 and 27/2009 preferred by

N.Athappan and R.Athappan allowed. Company Appeal No.27/2009

disposed of modifying the order of the CLB, dated 03/08/2009 in C.A.

No.155/2008 to the effect that the conveyance of immovable properties to

nominee of O.R.E is subject to all applicable laws and regulations.

16.To enforce the order of the CLB as modified and clarified by the

High Court, O.R.E. Holdings filed E.P.No.36/2011 and N.Athappan filed

E.P.No.35/2011 before CLB. Contesting the execution petitions,

C.G.Holdings and K.C.Palanisamy filed counter. After the matter was heard

and reserved for orders, Vasantha Mills Limited (VML) filed applications in

27/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

both the execution petitions to stay the execution proceedings till the

disposal of the proceedings pending before the Appellate Authority for

Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR). CLB vide, its order dated

30/12/2015 dismissed the Application No. 2/2015, filed by Vasantha Mills

Limited. CLB held that Section 22 of SICA does not provide blanket

protection. It has to be exercised in a judicial manner by scanning and

scrutinizing facts of the case. The applications under consideration are

devoid of merits filed after arguments in the execution petition heard and

reserved for orders.

17.CLB vide its order dated 31/12/2015, allowed both the execution

petitions. In E.P.No.35/2011, CLB declared N.Athappan – the petitioner as

the beneficial owner of the land to an extent of 7.80 acres of Vasantha Mills

Limited in S.No.113, 124, 125, 123/3B and declared ‘ORE Trust’ the

nominee of ORE Holdings (petitioner in E.P.No.36/2015) as the beneficial

owner of the property to an extent of 17.15 acres of Vasantha Mills Limited

28/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

land out of survey Nos.124,125,123/3B and 113. In case, the respondents

fail to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, directed the

jurisdictional Registrar to register the sale deed vesting the respective

portion of the land in favour of the petitioners/nominee.

18.Challenging the orders of CLB dated 30/12/2015 and 31/12/2015

the present appeals are filed.

19.Vasantha Mills Limited (VML) is the appellant in the following

Company Appeals:-

(i)Company Appeal No.5/2016 against the order dated

30/12/2015 passed in C.A.No.2/2015 in E.P.No. 35/2011 in

C.P.No.65/2005.

(ii) Company Appeal No.6/2016 against the order dated

30/12/2015 passed in C.A.No.2/2015 in E.P.No.36/2011 in

C.P.No.76/2005.

29/89 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

(iii) Company Appeal No.7/2016 against the order dated

31/12/2015 passed in E.P.No.35/2011 in C.P.No.65/2005.

(iv) Company Appeal No.8/2016 against the order dated

31/12/2015 passed in E.P.No.36/2011 in C.P.No.76/2005.

20.CG Holdings Limited and K.C.Palanisamy are the the appellants in

following Company Appeals.

(i) Company Appeal No.9/2016 against the order dated

31/12/2015 passed in E.P.No.36/2011 in C.P.No.76/2005.

(ii) Company Appeal No.10/2016 against the order dated

31/12/2015 passed in E.P.No.35/2011 in C.P.No.65/2005.

21.In all these appeals, the main contesting respondents are ORE

Holdings Private Limited Company, a foreign investor incorporated under

the laws of Mauritius and Nandakumar Athappan, S/o Ramasamy Athappan

(NRI), a resident of Singapore. The execution petitions filed by them were

30/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

allowed and the land of VML to an extent of 17.15 acres and 7.80 acres

respectively vested on ORE and Athappan.

Maintainability:

22.Before going into the merit of the appeals, a preliminary oral

objection regarding maintainability of the company appeals before the High

Court under Section 10 F of the Companies Act 1956, raised by the learned

counsel appearing for Athappan the petitioner in E.P.No.35/2011 and one of

the respondents in these appeals, in view of the notification of ‘such date’

for giving effect to Section 434 (1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013.

23.According to Thiru.J.Sivanandaraj, the learned counsel for the

respondent Athappan, Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act 2013

mandates all proceedings under the Companies Act 1956, pending before

the District Court and High Court, are to be transferred to Tribunal on

notification of the such date. This provision came into effect on 15/12/2016.

31/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

Therefore, the appeals cannot be heard by High Court, but to be transferred

to Tribunal.

24.Per contra, Thiru.V.Ramakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the appellants in Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 8 of 2016, submitted

that the appeals are to be heard by the High Court, in view of Section 10 F

of the old Act and Section 434 (1) (b) of the new Act. The Section 434 of

the new Act deals with transfer of certain pending proceedings. Since, the

preceding Clause 434(1) (b) exclusively deals with appeals pending in the

High Court on ‘such date’, the term ‘all proceeding’ used in Section

434(1)(c)of the new Act does not include appeals pending in High Court.

Section 434(1)(b) is a ‘stand alone’ provision and it empowers High Court

as the appellate forum against the decisions or orders of CLB passed before

constitution of NCLT. Consequent to the commencement of Section

434(1)(b) with effect from 01/06/2016 and repeal of the old companies Act,

1956 from 30/01/2019 and in view of the saving clause in Section 465 of

32/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

the companies Act, 2013. Further, appeals filed under Section 10 F of the

Companies Act, 1956 in the High Court has to be continued and proceeded

under Section 434(1) ( b ) of the Companies Act, 2013.

25.Section 434 (1)(c) speak about transfer of pending proceedings in

the Courts to Tribunal. This provision will not apply to the pending appeals

in the High Court against the decision or order of CLB. Precisely, that is the

reason why section 434(1)(b) emphasis that order/decision of CLB before

‘such date’ must be filed in High Court within 60 days from the date of

communication of the CLB order. The Companies (Transfer of proceedings)

Rules, 2016 which came into effect from 15/12/2016 also silent about

transfer of appeals from High Court to NCLT. To buttress his submission,

the learned Senior counsel also refer the judgment of the Supreme Court

rendered in Kaledonia Jude and Fibres Pvt Ltd –vs- Axis Nirman and

Industries Ltd reported in [2021 (2) SCC 403].

33/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

26.This Court is of the view that this issue is no more res integra after

the clarification given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kaledonia Jude

and Fibres Pvt Ltd case cited supra and for the reasons given below.

27.These appeals are filed under Section 10 F of the Companies Act,

1956 within the permissible period of limitation. The orders impugned in

these appeals are dated 30/12/2015 and 31/12/2015. The appeals were filed

during the month of March, 2016. On the date of filing these appeals,

Section 434 of the Companies Act, 2013 was not notified. In exercise of the

power conferred under Section 419(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 the

Central Government constituted NCLT and NCLAT on 01/06/2016. On the

same day, notification issued for transfer of pending matters or proceedings

or cases before Company Law Board to National Company Law Tribunal

(NCLT). Section 434 (1) (a) and (b) came into effect from that day. As far

as, the appeals against the order of CLB passed before the 01/06/2016, the

governing provision is Section 434(1)(b) which reads as under:-

34/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

“Section 434 (1) ( b): any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Company Law Board made before such date may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Company Law Board to him on any question of law arising out of such order:

Provided that the High Court may if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing an appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding filed within a further period sixty days; and not exceeding sixty days;”

28.Under the 1956 Act, after insertion of Section 10 E and

constitution of Board of Company Law Administration, disputes in

connection with the affairs of the Companies, were resolved either through

Company Law Board or through Courts depending upon the nature of relief

sought. They are the forums of first instance (original jurisdiction). Under

Section 10 F, the High Court is the appellant Court against any order or

decision passed by the Company Law Board. After the Companies Act

2013, from 01/06/2016 all matters, proceedings or cases pending before

CLB constituted under Section 10 E of the 1956 Act are to be transferred to

concern NCLT by virtue of Section 434(1)(a). All proceedings pending

35/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

before the Courts, after the date of notification i.e. 15/12/2016 were also to

be transferred to Tribunal (i.e) NCLT. To distinguish matters of first

instance and Appeals, clause (b) in subsection (1) of Section 434 is

incorporated in the Act. The Section, which deals with transfer of

proceedings pending before CLB and Court, restricts to proceedings of first

instance (original jurisdiction) and not appeals. That is the reason why

Clause (b) finds place in the Sub-Section(1) of Section 434. This clause

makes clear that the transfer of proceedings is not in respect of appeals

against the order or decision of CLB passed prior to 01/06/2016 and

pending on the file of High Court. Section 434 (1)(b) though on first reading

may look like misfit in the scheme of drafting, on deep reading, it makes

clear that this provision is incorporated with purpose.

29.As a sunset clause Section 434(1)(b) takes care of cases decided

by CLB before Section 434(1)(a) came into effect. Also, Section 465(2)(b)

saves actions done under the repealed Act i.e 1956 and such Acts are

36/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

deemed to be done under the new Act, 2013, in so far as it is not

inconsistent with the new Act. Therefore, if one read Section 10 F of the

1956 Act and Section 434(1)(b), will find these two Sections are identically

worded. Further, the power of the High Court conferred under Section 10 F

of the old Act as appellate forum, cannot be taken away without substituting

appropriate appellate forum. Under the scheme of the new Act, the forum of

first instance of all company disputes is NCLT and the Appellate forum is

NCLAT. The decision of CLB cannot be challenged before NCLT since is it

not an appellate forum. Like wise, the decision of CLB cannot be

challenged before NCLAT, since it is an appellate forum for decision or

order passed by NCLT and not for CLB. Therefore, legally and logically,

the High Court alone be the appellate Court to decide these appeals.

30.The plea of the respondents Counsel that Section 434(1)(c) has to

be applied and the appeals have to be transferred to Tribunal has no force.

As submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, the

37/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

appropriate appellate forum against the decisions of the CLB prior to

01/06/2016 is the High Court under Section 434(1)(b). Hence, this Court

holds that these appeals are maintainable.

31.Comp. Appeal Nos. 5 and 6 of 2016:

These two appeals are against the order of the CLB dated 30/12/2015

passed in the applications filed by Vasantha Mills Limited (VML).

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Application No.2/2015 in E.P.No.35/

2011 and Application No.2/2015 in E.P.No.36 of 2011, these two appeals

are filed by VML raising the following questions of law:-

“(i) Whether the Hon'ble Company Law Board, Chennai, was

right in rejecting the appellant's plea of stay of proceedings under

Section 22(1) of the SICA, 1985 on the ground that orders have

been reserved in C.A.No.2 of 2015 in E.P.No.36 of 2011?

(ii) Whether the provisions of Section 634A, 397, 398, 402 and

38/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

403 of the Companies Act, 1956 will override Section 22(1) of the

SICA Act, 1985?

(iii)Whether the Hon'ble Company Law Board has jurisdiction to

order execution proceedings against the appellant, when an appeal

under Section 25 of the SICA Act is pending before the AAIFR?

(iv)Whether the Hon'ble Company Law Board could have applied

the decision in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar & Ors., (1964) 5

SCR 946 and Pujya Sindhi Panchayat v. CL Mishra, AIR 2002

Raj 274 to the present case?

(v)Whether the Hon'ble Company Law Board ought to have

considered that the protection under SICA, 1985 is not merely for

the benefit of the appellant but for also its workers?

(vi) Whether the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Company

39/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

Law Board, was illegal and without jurisdiction?”

32.In response to these appeal and question of law raised, the first

respondent had filed a common counter, wherein it is stated that the

application filed by VML, after reserving order in the execution petition is

not maintainable and the order of the CLB dated 30/12/2015 is

unimpeachable. The execution petitions, after affording full opportunity to

the parties, were reserved for orders on 08/09/2015. Thereafter, the

applications under Section 22 (1) of SICA was moved, to the stay the

execution proceedings. Relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court

rendered in Arjun Singh –vs Mohindra Kumar and Ors reported in [1964(5)

SCR 946]; judgment of the Delhi High Court rendered in Apollo Finance

Ltd –vs- GSL India Ltd reported in [2002 (108) Comp.Cases 184]; and the

judgment of Rajathan High Court rendered in Pujya Sindh Panchayat –vs-

CL.Mishra reported in [AIR 2002 Raj 274], the CLB has rightly held that

Section 22 (1) of SICA does not give a blanket protection.

33.As far as the facts of this case, the exit scheme of the CLB by

40/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

orders dated 13/08/2008 and 03/08/2009 got confirmed by the Division

Bench of the Madras High Court, after rectifying the errors with

modification and some was tested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a

collateral proceeding and was held as final. The execution petitions filed

under Section 634 A to enforce the said order allowed and reached finality.

The applications by VML is filed, after lapse of several years invoking the

protection under Section 22 (1) SICA, even without furnishing the appeal

number pending before AAIFR. Not only the latches but the timing of

filing, these applications also found to be ill-motivated. In the Execution

petition, VML engaged counsel and filed counter. After arguments orders

were reserved. Till then, neither in the company petitions No:65/2005 and

76/2005 nor in E.P.Nos.35 and 36/2011, VML never raised the plea of

pendency of matter before BIFR or AAIFR. Just before delivery of the

order, a plea unfound, raised in these applications for stay of the execution.

34.Further more, VML was declared a sick company as early as 1985.

41/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

KCP got control of the assets and liability of VML in the year 1992. Much

water had flowed since then, more particularly after 2003, when ORE and

Athappan came forward to promote the land held by VML. The Joint

Venture Agreement between KCP, ORE and Athappan and the

incorporation of ‘CEPL’ had totally changed the legal and financial

character of VML. It is clear as crystal that KCP, after more than a decade

of litigation and his futile attempts through all means including criminal

prosecutions, to frustrate the implementation of the exit scheme, in the name

of VML, just before pronouncing order in the execution proceedings had

filed the applications as if VML a sick industry and the appeal under

Section 25 of the SICA is pending before AAIFR, therefore, its interest to

be protected under Section 22 (1) of SICA.

35.It is by now well settled that the immunity guaranteed under

Section 22 of SICA is not absolute. The bar or embargo under Section 22

(1) of the Act, should not lead to any undesirable state of affairs. The cover

42/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

of preventive umbrella of Section 22(1) of the SICA, cannot be allowed to

be misused to torpedo judicial orders. Section 22 is not meant to breed

dishonesty nor can it be so operated as to encourage unfair practices. ( refer:

Deputy Commercial Tax Officer –vs- Corromandal Pharmaceuticals

[[ 1997] 2 SCR 1026] )

36.Hence, for the above reasons, the Company Appeals No: 5 /2016

and 6/2016 deserves to be dismissed for want of merits. Accordingly, the

Company Appeals No:5 and 6 of 2016 are dismissed. The orders of CLB

dated 30/12/2015 passed in Application No:2/2015 in E.P.No.35/2011 in

C.P.No.65/2005 and in Application No:2/2015 in E.P.No.36/2011 in

C.P.No.76/2005 confirmed.

37.Comp.Appeals 7 to 10 of 2016:

Out of these four appeals, VML is the appellant in Company Appeal

No.7/2016 filed against the order dated 31/12/2015 passed in

43/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

E.P.No.35/2011 and the Company Appeal No.8/2016 filed against the order

dated 31/12/2015 passed in E.P.No.36/2011. CG Holdings Limited and

K.C.Palanisamy are the appellants in Company Appeal No.9/2016 filed

against the order dated 31/12/2015 passed in E.P.No.36/2011 and the

Company Appeal No.10/2016 filed against the order dated 31/12/2015

passed in E.P.No. 35/2011.

38.In all these 4 appeals, the grounds of challenge are almost

identical. The Questions of Law raised in these appeals reads as below:-

“(I)Whether the payment due to a foreigner pursuant to a decree providing for buyback of its securities would be subject to the cap imposed by the FEMA regulations No.15/2013-14 dated 01.07.2013 and if so can an amount exceeding the 79 crores be paid as consideration in such a case?

(II)Whether the Madras High Court Order dated 05.08.2011 should be interpreted to water down the CLB Order and if

44/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

so is the N.Athappan's prayer to seek a transfer of the property of the Appellant as a matter of right misconceived?

(III) Whether the CLB ought to have considered that the return of monies to ORE was a consideration for buy-back of its shares and thus, the entire transaction was subject to all applicable?

(IV)Whether the CLB ought to have considered that the return of monies to N.Athappan was a consideration for buy-back of his shares and thus, the entire transaction was subject to all applicable laws?

(V)Whether the impugned order permits execution of debt like features in an equity transaction, which has been specifically barred by the RBI vide its circular dated 09.01.2014?

(VI)Should the wording of the Madras HC Order (05.08.2011) be given an interpretation which is in consonance with Statute and which prevents unjust

45/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

enrichment of the decree holder? If so, does the interpretation provided by the Hon'ble CLB render the wording of the Madras High Court Order (5.8.2011) contrary to Order XXI, Rule 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

(VII) Is an Order passed by a Court which is against Statute and which results in unjust enrichment one which the Court inherently lacks jurisdiction to pass?

(VIII) Do Sections 397 – 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 provide the Hon'ble CLB with the power to pass an Order which would result in unjust enrichment of the decree holder and which would be contrary to Order XXI Rule 64 of the CPC? If not, can such an Order be assailed even during execution proceedings?

(IX) Once the liability of a party is determined to be a fixed sum of money, can a Court/ Tribunal, in the event of non- payment of that money, direct that the property of the judgment Debtor's group company be transferred to the

46/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

successful party?

(X)Would the principles enshrined in the CPC and specifically Order XXI Rule 64 of the CPC govern the power of the Hon'ble CLB while passing Orders of execution?

(XI) In light of the fact that the value of property is ever changing, does a Court/Tribunal lack the power to direct the property to be conveyed in satisfaction of a money decree?

(XII) Has the Hon'ble CLB acted beyond the limited powers conferred upon it by the Companies Act, 1956?

(XIII) If the Hon'ble CLB, acting under section 634A of the Companies Act, 1956, would not have the power to order a direct transfer of property as a means of executing an Order, would it have the powers to do so under Sections 397- 402?

(XIV)Whether the Madras High Court Order (5.8.2011) should be interpreted to water down the 2008 CLB Order

47/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

and if so is ORE's prayer to seek a transfer of the property of VML as a matter of right misconceived?

(XV) Whether the letter dated 08.06.2015 constituted of a valid approval by RBI to permit transfer of VML land to ORE Trust?”

39.In response to the questions of law raised by the appellants, both

the contesting respondents namely ORE and Athappan had filed their

counters. The gist of the counters is that,

i)the order in C.P.No.65/2005 and C.P.No.76/2005 was passed, after

hearing all the parties concern. The Joint Venture Agreement and FDI was

made in compliance of FEMA regulations. While framing the Exit scheme,

CLB had taken note of those facts and no appeal was filed by these

appellants against the order of the CLB dated 13/08/2008.

ii)The subsequent order of CLB dated 03/08/2009 modifying the

13/08/2008 when challenged before the High Court in Company Appeal

48/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

Nos.21 and 25 to 27/2009 and 29/2009 and O.S.A.Nos.2 to 5/2009, and

O.S.A No. 258/2009, the High Court has passed a comprehensive order on

05/08/2011. This order has reached finality with the seal of approval by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the batch of civil appeals In Chandran

Rathnaswami –vs- K.C.Palanisamy and others etc. by order dated

09/05/2013.

iii) The transfer of VML property is a right conferred to the investors

namely ORE and Athappan in case of failure to pay back the invested

money with interest within the period of 12 months. The claim of the

appellants that, the return of monies invested by ORE and Athappan was for

a consideration for buy-back of shares is false and mischievous. The order

of the CLB is pursuant to the prayer sought by C.G.Holdings to frame a

scheme of exit and passed in exercise of its power under Section 402 of the

Companies Act, 1956 to bring an end to the joint venture agreement.

iv) As per the High Court order dated 05/08/2011 in Company Appeal

Nos.21 and 25 to 27/2009 and 29/2009, ORE has obtained permission of

49/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

RBI and had nominated ORE Trust. The relevant documents were produced

before CLB in the execution petition and the same has been duly considered

by CLB and recorded the same in the order impugned in these appeals. As

far as Athappan is concern, RBI vide its letter dated 04/04/2012 had

clarified that no approval is required for acquiring land by Athappan.

Therefore, the grounds of challenge are without any merits, baseless and

frivolous. Contrary to Court records.

40.During the course of argument, the learned Senior Counsel

representing Vasantha Mills Limited, condensed and capsule the Questions

of Law as below:-

1. Whether the CLB in execution has powers to vary the order

sought to be executed ?

2. Whether the CLB in execution is bound to follow Order

21 of CPC ?

3. Whether in the light of the Division Bench order, the

50/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

CLB had jurisdiction to order vesting of property of

greater value than the principal amount decreed and

interest thereon?

41.The learned Senior Counsel making a comparison of the operative

portion of the CLB order ought to be executed and the order passed in

execution petition, submitted that the declaration relief granted and vesting

of the property are behind and beyond the decree. Without following the

procedures laid under Order 21 of CPC, the CLB had passed the impugned

order. The Division Bench of the High Court in its order dated 05/08/2011

had clearly stated that the properties of VML are to be kept as security and

only in the event of remote need, the properties of VML i.e 17.15 acres are

to be conveyed to ORE and 7.80 acres to Athappan. Thus, it is very clear

through the above observation of the High Court that the property is to be

held only as security and cannot to be conveyed, unless there is remote

need. While so, the CLB erred in vesting the land to the decree holder

51/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

without any material or justification of remote need. The property is worth

several times the principal amount decreed and interest thereon. The

property held as security, which is greater in value than the money due,

cannot be conveyed. The execution Court is bound to follow the principle of

proportionality. In the instant case, the CLB gravely erred in not considering

the proportionality of the amount due and the value of the property

conveyed which is held only as security.

42.The learned Senior Counsel representing C.G.Holdings submitted

that, the CLB, after its order dated 13/08/2008, had become functus officio.

Any change must be only by and before the Appellate Court. The order

sought to be executed is the order modified without authority of law. Nullity

can be questioned at any stage. Further, in the Division Bench Order, no

time limit fixed for repayment of the money invested with interest.

Therefore, the stage of ‘remote need’ never reached in this case. Hence, the

declaration and vesting order are pre mature without authority and a nullity.

52/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

43.Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents

contented that, the plea of “functus officio” is ill conceived. The order

which was executed by the CLB in exercise of its power under Section 634

A of the Companies Act, is the order passed by the Division Bench of the

High Court, which interfered the order modified by the CLB. The original

order of the CLB dated 13/08/2008 was not challenged by anyone. The CLB

order is of three parts:-

First: CEPL shall return a sum of Rs. 75 crores and Rs.4 crores invested by

ORE and Athappan respectively, together with simple interest at the rate of

8% per annum from the date of investment till the date of repayment within

a period of 12 months, in one or more instalments, commencing from

01.11.2008.

Second: In the event of any failure to make the repayment within the

specified time, CEPL, CG Holdings, KCP and VML will duly convey the

immovable properties of VML, namely, 17.15 acres of land in favour of

53/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

ORE and 7.80 acres of land in favour of Athappan by executing and

registering necessary deeds of conveyance in strict compliance with all

applicable laws.

Third: The parties are at liberty to apply in the event of any difficulty in

implementation of the smooth exist of ORE and Athappan from CEPL.

44.The appellants did not evince any genuine interest to comply the

first limb of the order and its make-belief attempt to pay got exposed. They

tried to siphon out the money laying in the Bank. Therefore, ORE Holdings

filed application before CLB since, CLB in its order dated 13/08/2008 gave

liberty to the parties to approach CLB in case of difficulty in

implementation of the smooth exit. CG Holdings and K.C.Palanisamy ( the

appellants in Comp.Appeals No.9 and 10 of 2016) also filed separate

application expressing their difficulty in implementing the exit scheme. In

the said circumstances, CLB modified its earlier order. However, the said

modified order was challenged before the High Court. The order now

54/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

executed is in consonance with the order of the appellate Court in

Comp.Appeals No.21 and 25 to 27 and 29 of 2009. Therefore, the

comparison of the original order of CLB dated 13/08/2008 with the order

passed in the execution petition is misleading and mischievous.

45.Further, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-

ORE Holdings submitted that, after the order passed by the appellate Court,

the order of the CLB got clarified through the appellate Court order dated

05/08/2011. The appellants at no point of time in the past had sought for

extension of time to honour their commitment of repaying the invested

money with interest. Due to their failure to pay the money within the time

prescribed and no sign of attempt to pay the money had resulted in the

‘remote need’ to invoke the second limb of the CLB order viz, transfer of

the land. The declaration of title and vesting of the property is the natural

consequence to the decree and not beyond or behind the decree. The order

of the CLB constituted under Section 10 E of the Companies Act, are to be

55/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

enforced by CLB itself. Only in case of inability to execute the order, CLB

need to send the case to the Court. Therefore, these appeals, which lack any

question of law, are abuse of law to prevent the decree holder from enjoying

the fruits of the decree.

46. Heard the erudite arguments of the Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan (Senior

Counsel) and Mr.V.Ramakrishnan (Senior Counsel) for the appellants.

Mr.ARL.Sunderasan (Senior Counsel) and Mr. J.Sivanandaraj for the

contesting respondents. Apart from their respective oral submission, this

Court also had an additional advantage of guidance by way of the judgments

of the Division Bench of this Court passed in Company Appeals No. 21 and

25 to 27 and 29/2009 and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

collateral proceedings, which has dealt this case earlier and rendered a

detailed judgment.

47.To buttress their arguments, the learned counsels relied upon the

56/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

following judgments as binding precedent:

(i)Dwarakadas –vs- State of Madhya Pradesh:- 1999(3) SCC 500;

(ii)K.Rajamouli –vs- A.V.K.N.Swamy :- 2001(5) SCC 37;

(iii)Rafique Bibi (Dead) by Lrs. -vs- Sayed Waliuddin (Dead) by Lrs. & Others:2004(1) SCC 287.;

(iv)Balvant N.Vishwamitra & Ors -vs- Yadav Sadashiv Mule (dead) & Ors: AIR 2004 SC 4377;

(v)Manish Mohan Sharma & Ors.–vs- Rambahadur Thakur Ltd & Ors: 2006(4) SCC 416;

(vi)Narpat Singh –vs- Rajasthan Financial Corporation: - 2008 (1) CTC 73.

(vii)Bholi –vs- Lachman Singh:CDJ 2008 775;

(viii)V.S.Krishnan & Ors. –vs- M/s Westfort Hi-Tech Hospital Ltd & Ors:- 2008(3) SCC 363;

(ix)M S.D.C.Radharaman-vs- M.S.D.Chandrasekara Raja & Ors:- 2008(6) SCC 750; and

(x)Purnima Manathena & Ors. –vs- Renuka Datla & Ors:- 2016 (1) SCC 237

Functus Officio:

57/89 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

48. ‘Functus Officio’ is a latin term applied to something, which once

has had a life and power, but which has become of no virtue whatsoever,

after fulfilling or accomplishing the purpose of its creation. In Dwarakadas

case cited supra, after the decree of the trial Court, the decree holder filed

an application under Section 152 of the CPC praying for awarding of

interest from the date of the suit, till the date of the decree by correcting the

judgment and decree on the ground that non-awarding of interest pendente

lite was an accidental omission. The trial Court allowed this application and

directed the correction of the judgment and decree by awarding interest

pendente lite. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the

Judgement Debtor (JD) appealed to the High Court. The High Court partly

allowed the appeal by holding the Judgement Debtor (JD) is liable to pay

only a sum of Rs.4,783.33 to the Decree Holder with interest at the rate of

6% pa. The order of the trial Court granting interest pendente lite was set

aside. Challenging the High Court order, the Decree Holder took up the

matter to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the said context, the Hon'ble Apex

58/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

court said ,

“Section 152 CPC provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. The exercise of this power contemplates the correction of mistakes by the Court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate of passing effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. The settled position of law is that after the passing of the judgment, decree or order, court or the Tribunal becomes functus officio and thus being not entitled to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders earlier passed. The corrections contemplated are of correcting only accidental omission or mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes which might have been committed by the Court, while passing the judgment, decree or order. The omission sought to be corrected, which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152 for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to file appeal or review application. It implies that the Section cannot be pressed into service to correct an omission which is intentional, how erroneous that may be. It has been noticed that the Courts below have been liberally construing and applying the province of Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC even after passing off effective orders in the lis pending before them. No Court can under the cover of the aforesaid Sections modify, alter or add to the terms of its original judgment, decree or order. In the instant case, the trial Court specifically held the respondents-State

59/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

liable to pay future interest only, despite the prayer of the appellant for grant of interest with effect from the date of alleged breach, which impliedly meant that the court had rejected the claim of the appellant in so far as pendente lite interest was concerned. The omission in not granting the pendente lite interest could not be held to be accidental omission or mistake.”

49.Following the above dictum laid in Dwarakadas case, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in its subsequent judgment K. Rajamouli-vs-.V.K.N. Swamy

cited supra, held,

“In the present case, neither the arbitrators nor the trial

Court awarded pendente lite interest to the decree holder. The

executing Court also refused to grant pendente lite interest to the

decree holder and the same was upheld by the High Court in the

revision petition filed against the order of the executing Court.

However, the position would be different where the judgment of a

Court provides for pendente lite interest and decree omits to

mentions such interest. Such a mistake could be corrected under

60/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

Section 152 CPC. The correct position of law is that a decree

cannot add or subtract any relief except what has been provided in

the judgment.”

50.The four line order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narpal

Singh case relied by appellant counsel reads as below:-

“I.A.No.15-16 for clarification and direction of Court's Order dated 3.5.2007 are totally misconceived. Moreover, ordinarily no I.A. lies after a case is finally disposed of. Ordinarily, an I.A. is maintainable only in a pending case. Once a case is finally disposed of the Court becomes functus officio, and thereafter an I.A. lies ordinarily only for correcting clerical or accidental mistake. The same are accordingly, dismissed.”

51. Bholi (Dead) By L.RS. –vs- Lachhman Singh & Ors case arise

from a suit for declaration of title alleging the sale deed obtained by

defendants by fraud. The plaintiff lost before the trial Court. Pending his

appeal before the appellate Court, the parties entered into compromise and a

61/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

decree was passed. As per the terms of the compromise, the Defendants

Nos.8 to 18 agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- in two installments, one of

Rs.7,000/- on or before 30.10.1985 and second installment of Rs.3,000/- on

or before 30.5.1986. However, the defendants failed to pay the second

installment within the time fixed. An application was filed under Section

147 CPC for extension of time to deposit the second installment which was

rejected by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants filed an

application under Section 115 CPC which was allowed by the High Court

by extending the time enabling the defendants to deposit the second

installment. Against the order of the High Court, the plaintiff filed Civil

Appeal (CA) before the Supreme Court. The said Civil Appeal was disposed

of on 30th October, 2002 with the following observation:-

"It is not disputed that the settlement arrived at between the parties was made part of the decree of the Court. It was a decree like any other decree passed by the Civil Court. Once a decree is passed by the Court, it becomes functus officio to modify the decree. It is only the higher court either to set aside

62/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

the decree or to modify the decree. Since the court, after passing the decrees became functus officio, it also had no power under Section 148 CPC to extend the time for depositing the money by modifying the terms of the decree which was passed on settlement between the parties. If the Court modifies the decree, it varies the terms of the settlement which is not permissible. In that view of the matter, the High Court fell in error in extending the time for depositing the second installment by the defendants. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be allowed."

52.Having suffered the above order in the civil appeal filed against

the order of the High Court passed under its revisional jurisdiction under

Section 115 of CPC, the Defendants filed second Appeal before the High

Court after delay of 17 years and same was entertained by the High Court.

That order when challenged before the Supreme Court, the Court extracting

its earlier order dated 30/10/2002 held:

“after the decision of this Court dated 30.10.2002 the controversy between the parties finally came to an end and it was not permissible for the High Court to entertain the second appeal thereafter In the aforesaid view, we are of the view that

63/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

the High Court fell in error in entertaining the second appeal by the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside”.

53.Coming back to the facts of the case in hand, as discussed earlier,

the exit scheme framed by CLB vide its order dated 13/08/2008 accepted by

all the contesting parties and not challenged before the higher forum. What

was challenged was the modification of the order dated 13/08/2008 pursuant

to the applications filed by CG Holdings and O.R.E.Holdings. However, the

error in the modified order dated 03/08/2009 was rectified and cured by the

High Court in the appeals vide order dated 05.08.2011. As the result, true

test should be is whether the execution order of CLB dated 31/12/2015 is in

tune with the order of the High Court order dated 05/08/2011 which

modified the CLB order in exercise of its power under Section 10F of the

Companies Act.

64/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

54. It is to be borne in mind, that the petitions in C.P.No.65 of 2005

and C.P.No.76 of 2005 were filed under Sections 397, 398, 399, 402 and

403 of the Companies Act, 1956 making allegations and counter allegations

of oppression and mismanagement. CG Holdings and KCP prayed for an

exist scheme, whereas ORE Holdings and Athappan wanted institutional

auditing and protection from mismanagement. The object of Sections 397,

398 and 402 of the Companies Act, is well defined and explained by the

Apex Court in V.S.Krishnan & Ors -vs- M/s Westfort Hi-Tech Hospital

Ltd. & Others reported in 2008 (3) SCC 363 as below:-

“In a number of judgments, this Court considered in extenso the scope of Sections 397 and 398. The following judgments could be usefully referred to:

(a)Needle Industries (India) Ltd. And Others v. Needle Industries Newey (India) Holding Ltd. And Others, (1981) 3 SCC 333.

(b)M.S.Madhusoodhanan & Anr. v. Kerala Kaumudi (P) Ltd. & Ors., (2004) 9 SCC 204.

(c)Dale and Carrington Investment (P) Ltd. & Anr. v.

P.K.Prathapan & Ors., (2005) 1 SCC 212.

65/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

(d)Sangramsinh P.Gaekwad & Ors. v. Shantadevi P.Gaekwad (Dead) Through L.Rs & Ors. (2005) 11 SCC 314.

(e)Kamal Kumar Dutta & Anr. v. Ruby General Hospital Ltd., & Ors. (2006) 7 SCC 613.”

55.From the above decisions, it is clear that oppression would be

made out:

(a)Where the conduct is harsh, burdensome and wrong.

(b)Where the conduct is mala fide and is for a collateral purpose where although the ultimate objective may be in the interest of the company, the immediate purpose would result in an advantage for some shareholders vis-a-vis the others.

(c)The action is against probity and good conduct.

(d)The oppressive act complained of may be fully permissible under law but may yet be oppressive and, therefore, the test as to whether an action is oppressive or not is not based on whether it is legally permissible or not since even if legally permissible, if the action is otherwise against probity, good conduct or is burdensome, harsh or wrong or is mala fide or for a collateral purpose, it would amount to oppression under Section 397 and 398.

(e)Once conduct is found tobe oppressive under Sections 397 and 398, the discretionary power given to the Company Law Board under Section 402 to set right, remedy or put an end to such oppressive is very wide.

66/89 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

(f)As to what are facts which would give rise to or constitute oppression is basically a question of fact and, therefore, whether an act is oppressive or not is fundamentally/basically a question of fact.

56.The discretionary power under Section 402 of the Companies Act

are residuary in nature and in addition to the powers available to the CLB

under Sections 397(2) and Section 398 (2) which permit the CLB to make

such order as it thinks fit with a view to give quitus to the matters

complainted. In the instant case, the oppressive conduct of the appellants

against the Foreign investors namely ORE Holdings and Athappan well

found and spoken aloud in the orders passed by CLB, High Court and the

Supreme Court. To put an end to the oppression, the CLB has formulated

the exist scheme. To avail the exist scheme, CG Holdings and

K.C.Palanisamy ought to have either repaid Rs.75 crores with 8% interest to

ORE Holdings within the one year period prescribed or in alternate ought to

have conveyed 17.15 acres of land morefully mentioned in the order.

67/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

Similarly it should have paid Rs.4 crores with 8% interest within the one

year period to Athappan or in alternate 7.80 acres of land should have been

conveyed to him. Even after lapse of several years, the appellants admittedly

not complied either of the two options given to them. Hence, CLB in

exercise of the power conferred under Section 634A of the Companies Act,

had passed the orders in Execution Petitions No.35/2011 and 36/2011 to

enforce its earlier order. In the order enforced by CLB, no addition or

subtraction of the decree which could materially change the spirit of the

order could be seen.

57.The judgments referred and relied by the appellants to impress that

CLB has become 'functus officio' after delivery of the order dated

13/08/2008 and CLB execution order is a nullity are in fact both legally and

factually not relevant to the case in hand. In all the judgments cited, the

Court which has passed the decree later, has altered or modified the decree

either by extending the time limit or by awarding interest pendente lite.

68/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

Whereas in the instant case, the order of CLB dated 13/08/2008 as modified

by the subsequent order dated 03/08/2009 was altered and clarified by the

appellate Court, thus the order of CLB merged with the order of the High

Court. The CLB in exercise of its power under 634 A had executed the

order which has the approval of High Court and the Supreme Court. Under

Section 10E (5) of the Companies Act, 1956, without prejudice to the

provisions of Sub-Section (4C) and (4D) CLB shall in exercise of its powers

and in discharge of its functions under the Act or any other law be guided by

the principles of natural justice and shall act in its discretion.

58.It is trite principle of law that the decree, which is the formal

expression of the adjudication, should go in tune with the judgment/order.

The final order in the instant adjudication is the order dated 05/08/2011

passed by the High Court in exercise of the appellate power. On comparing

the High Court order with the operative portion of the CLB order passed in

the execution petition, this Court find no deviation or modification which is

69/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

beyond the order/decree. Declaring the title and vesting the possession is

consequential to the main relief and nothing in deviation of the main relief.

CLB has inherent power to give full and meaningful effect to its decision.

59.The difference between the CLB order dated 13/08/2008 passed in

the company petitions and the impugned order dated 31/12/2015 passed in

the execution petitions is the explicit permission to transfer of land to the

nominee of the decree holders, after obtaining all the required approval from

the competent authorities. This modification is an essential necessity for

enforcing the order in letter and spirit. CLB has not done this modification

on its own, but based on the clarification and permission given by the High

Court in its order dated 05/08/2011.

60. CLB took up the adjudication under Sections 397, 398 and 399 of

the Companies Act to resolve the dispute arose from Joint Venture

Agreement. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the collateral

70/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

proceedings, the said dispute has been fully and finally settled by the CLB

and the High Court. For the enforcement of the said settlement in a

meaningful manner, the modification approved by the High Court vide its

order dated 05/08/2011 is inevitable. The execution order is in tune with

the clarification made by the High Court in paragraphs 144 to 146 of its

order dated 05/08/2011. It is also pertinent to note that RBI vide its letter

dated 08/06/2015 had permitted 'ORE Trust' the nominee of ORE Holdings

to get the land of VML conveyed in its favour.

61.Therefore, on cumulative consideration of the orders passed by CLB

on 13/08/2008 and 03/08/2009, the order of High Court dated

05/08/2011(reported in 2011 SCC online Mad 1078) and the order of the

Supreme Court dated 09/05/2013(reported in 2013(6) SCC 740), this Court

holds that, the functus officio argument of the appellants is baseless.

71/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

Nullity:

62.A Decree can be said to be a nullity, if passed without jurisdiction.

A decree is without jurisdiction, if the Court passing the decree, has usurped

a jurisdiction, which it did not have and which could not be waived by the

parties. A mere wrong exercise of jurisdiction does not result in nullity.

The lack of jurisdiction in the Court passing the decree must be patent on its

face in order to enable the executing Court to come to the conclusion that

the decree is a nullity.

63.In Rafique Biby (Dead) by Lrs. -vs- Sayed Waliuddin (Dead) by

Lrs. & Others reported in 2004 (1) SCC 287, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has held that:

“A distinction exists between a decree passed by a Court having no jurisdiction and consequently being a nullity and not executable and a decree of the Court which is merely illegal and nor passed in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. A decree suffering from illegality or irregularity of procedure, cannot be termed inexecutable by the executing

72/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

court; the remedy of a person aggrieved by such a decree is to have it set aside in a duly consituted legal proceedings or by a superior Court failing which he must obey the command of the decree. A decree passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be denuded of its efficacy by any collateral attack or in incidental proceedings.”

64.In Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman &

others, reported in (1970) 1 SCC 670, it has been held:-

“When the decree is made by a Court which has no inherent jurisidction to make it, objection as to its validity may be raised in an execution proceeding if the objection appears on the face of the record. But where the objection as to jurisdiction of the Court to pass the decree does not appear on the face of the record and requires examination of the questions raised and decided at the trial or which could have been but have not been raised, the executing Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain an objection as to the validity of the decree even on the ground of absence of jurisdiction.”

65.In the light of the above observations by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, when the order executed by CLB is tested, the procedural infraction

alleged is not a ground to call a decree nullity. It is not the case of the

73/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

appellants that CLB lack jurisdiction to enforce its order. Their case is that,

after modification by the High Court, CLB lack jurisdiction to enforce the

order dated 13/08/2008. The appellants could not point out anything in the

impugned order, which has not been intended by CLB or High Court. CLB

order dated 13/08/2008 was subjected to modification vide, order dated

03/08/2009 and that order was appealed and same got interfered/clarified by

the High Court vide dated 05/08/2011. Thereafter, CLB in exercise of the

power vested in it under Section 634A had passed the order impugned in

these appeals. Therefore the argument that CLB should not have entertained

the execution petition has no legs to stand and bound to fall. Likewise, the

submission that the order in the execution petition is beyond and behind the

operative portion of the decree is to say the least, a misconceived

submission, made ignoring the fact that modification of the CLB order

dated 03/09/2009 was challenged, tested and the error whatsoever found

was rectified and cured by the appellate Court. The appellants submission

that the order of the CLB dated 31/12/2015 is nullity is legally

74/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

unsustainable.

Application of Order XXI of CPC:

66.Vesting of civil Court powers in certain matter does not mean that

the powers vested to CLB under the Companies Act are divested. CLB is a

creation under Companies Act, 1956 and governed by Companies Act and

Regulations framed under the siad Act. Actions of CLB should not be

looked through the prism 'CPC'.

67.A combined reading of Section 10E, 10F and 634A of the

Companies Act, indicates that the purpose of CLB does not get fulfilled

with passing order but it is also empowered with the power under Section

634A to execute its order. CLB constituted under Section 10E of the Act, is

vested with the power of a Civil Court in respect of certain matters

enumerated under Section 10E (4C). It is to be noted that, all the 6 heads

enumerated under Section 10E (4C) are matters related to pre-trial and

75/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

during trial but not related to execution. To make it more clear, the matters

enumerated are:-

(a)Discovery and inspection:(Or XI CPC)

(b)Enforcing attendance of witnesses: (Or XVI CPC)

(c)Compelling the production of documents:(Or XIII CPC)

(d)Examining witnesses on oath: (Or X, XVIII CPC)

(e)Granting Adjournments: (Or XVII CPC)

(f)Reception of evidence on affidavits (Or XIX CPC)

68. In exercise of its powers and the discharge of its functions, CLB

has to be guided by principles of natural justice and shall act in its

discretion. It also has power to regular its own procedure [See Section 10 E

(5) and (6)]. The CLB while dealing applications filed under Section 634 A

of the Act sit as executing Court. Section 634A empowers CLB to execute

its own order. It enables CLB to send execution petition to a Court in case

of its inability to execute such order. It is left to the discretion of CLB

76/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

whether it has the ability to execute or not. So, application of CPC in

general or order XXI of CPC in particular nowhere contemplated under

Companies Act when CLB executes it order. The guiding principle to be

followed is the principle of natural justice. The appellants case is not that

CLB which executing the order has violated of principle of natural justice.

Even if they want to say so, there is none.

69.On examining the Company Law Board Regulations 1991, we find

under Regulation 44, the inherent power of the Bench is saved. This

Regulation reads as follows:

“Saving of inherent power of the Bench: “Nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Bench to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Bench.”

70.At this juncture, Regulation 48 is also need to be taken note,

77/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

which confers CLB with the power to dispense with the requirement of any

Regulations, for reasons to be recorded in writing. As observed by the

learned Judge in M.S.D Chandrasekar Raja -vs- Jayabharath Textiles Pvt.

Ltd. And Ors reported in [(2014) 1 LW 139], “CLB is conferred with a

power under Regulation 48, to do something that even a Civil Court cannot

do. A normal Civil Court cannot dispense with the requirements of any

specific provision of the Code of Civil Procedure. To my mind, CPC does

not confer any such power upon a normal Civil Court. Therefore, it is clear

that the CLB is made by regulations, to be a Master of its own procedure,

apart from being the Master of ceremonies.”

71.The provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and the judgments

referred above without any doubt answers in negative the question about

application of Or XXI of CPC in execution of CLB order. Therefore, the

order of CLB passed under Section 634A cannot be challenged on the

ground of non adherence of the procedures laid under Or. XXI of CPC.

78/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

Proportionality:-

72.The learned counsel for the appellants VML, relying upon

paragraph 144 of the High Court order dated 05/08/2011, submitted that the

property of VML is only kept as security for the repayment of the money

vested by ORE and Athappan. Only in case of remote need the land of

VML is to be conveyed. That too, proportional to the money payable. At

present the value of the property is nearly Rupees 500 crores. Whereas the

principle and interest payable to ORE and Athappan is far less. The

impugned order in not equitable and therefore, liable to be set aside.

73.In response, the counsels for the respondents submitted that, the

submission is appellants is devoid of merit and bonafide. On the date of

CLB order which framed the exist scheme, the money invested and the

extend of land ordered to be conveyed was proportionate and accepted

without any demur. After enjoying the benefit of the exit scheme taking the

79/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

absolute control of CEPL and its subsidiaries the appellants cannot retract

from their commitment.

74. Paragraph 144 of the Division Bench order dated 05/08/2011 read:

“ORE, being a non-resident Company is not permitted to hold immovable

property, in India. In the first limb, the properties of VML are kept as

security and only in the event of remote need, the properties of VML i.e

17.15 acres are to be conveyed to ORE and 7.80 acres to Athappan. ORE,

being a non-resident Company, is not permitted to hold immvoable

properties in India, however, subject to approval/permission to be obtained

by ORE from the competent authority.”

75.The directions in the order of CLB dated 13/08/2008, is divided

into three limbs. The first limb which is referred above is the direction of

CEPL to return a sum of Rs.75 crores and Rs.4 crores invested by ORE and

Athappan respectively, together with simple interest of 8% p.a from the date

80/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

of investment till the day of repayment, within a period of 12 months in one

or more installments, commencing from 01/11/2008.

76.Till the expiry of one year period granted to repay ORE and

Athappan their money invested, the appellants representing CEPL never

made any genuine attempts to pay. Even thereafter, never sought for

extension of time or offered to repay the investment when the dispute

between them was pending before High Court and the Supreme Court. At

least before the CLB when the execution petitions were pending, they

should have deposited the money to show their bonafide. Having failed and

deprived the respondents from tasting the fruits of the decree for more than

12 years, had raised the plea of proportionality.

77.The case under consideration is not a suit for recovery of money

simplicitor or a suit for specific performance. In a joint venture agreement

(JVA) entered between KCP, C.G.Holdings VML and CPL as one group,

81/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

ORE as another group and Athappan as third group, investment as stated

above was made by ORE and Athappan. When the proposed project could

not take off due to deadlock among the directors, C.G.Holdings and KCP

approached CLB for a exit scheme in C.P.No.65 of 2005. On the other

hand, ORE filed C.P.No.76 of 2005 alleging mismanagement and

suppression by scheme of exit and passed order containing the following

three directions.

(a)CEPL shall return a sum of Rs.75 crores and Rs.4 crores invested by ORE and Athappan respectively, together with simple interest at the rte of 8% per annum from the date of investment till the date of repayment within a period of 12 months in one or more installments, commencing from 01.11.2008.

(b)VML shall not alienate or sell any of its immovable pr operties till full payment is made to ORE, in terms of this order.

(c)In the event of any failure to make the repayment within the specified time, CEPL, CG Holdings, KCP and VML will duly convey the immovable properties of VML,

82/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

namely 17.15 acres of land in favour of ORE and 7.80 acres of land in favour of Athappan by executing and registering necessary deeds of conveyance in strict compliance with all applicable law, as consideration for reduction of capital and surrender of the shares of ORE and Athappan.

78.The directions of CLB extracted above without any ambiguity

indicates that the order is complete and composite scheme for smooth exit

of ORE and Athappan from Cheran groups of company. The immovable

property to be conveyed is not alone for the money invested but to

relinquish right in the CEPL and its subsidiary companies.

79.In a matter involving an exit scheme framed under the Companies

Act, one party is eased out from the management of the Company for a

consideration. In such circumstances, the money invested is not the sole

criteria for fixing the quit pro quo . There are several other factors come into

play to ascertain the 'quit pro quo' to ease out the deadlock for smooth exit.

Weighing the money invested in the year 2003-2004 at one hand and the

83/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

present value of the property at another hand is not fair or equitable test for

proportionality. The CLB order dated 13/08/2008 was accepted by the

parties without demur, except the applications filed subsequently for

effective implementation of the order. The 'remote need' to convey the

property had arisen long ago and the appellants had at no point of time had

shown sign of complying the first limb of the CLB order. In the given

circumstances and facts, after several rounds litigation, the issue of

proportionality raised in the execution proceedings is untenable. More

particularly, when the proportion between the right of relinquishment viz a

viz the extent of land was accepted by parties and never challenged before

the appellate forum, this point had lost the character of a question of law for

the High Court to entertain under Section 10F of the Companies Act at this

stage.

The Question of Law:-

84/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

80.To conclude, the scope of Section 10F of the Companies Act

which give right to appeal against the decision/order of the Company Law

Board before High Court is subject to existence of any question of law.

Section 10F reads as under:

“10F.Appeals against the order of the Company Law

Board-Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the

Company Law Board made before the commencement of the

Companies (Second Amendment)Act, 2002 may file an

appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of

communication of the decision or order of the Company Law

Board to him on any question of law arising out of such order:

Provided that the High Court may, if it is satisfied that

the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing

the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a

further period not exceeding sixty days”.

85/89 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

81. Under Section 10F an appeal to the High Court againt an order of

the Company Law Board entertained only on a question of law. In other

words, the Company Law Board is the final authority on facts, unless such

findings are perverse based on no evidence or are otherwise arbitrary,

appeal is not maintainable. The jurisdiction of the appellate Court under

Section 10F is restricted to the question as to whether on the facts as noticed

by the Company Law Board and has placed before it, an inference could

reasonably be arrived at that such conduct was against probity and good

conduct or was malafide or for a collateral purpose or was burdensome,

harsh or wrongful. The only other basis on which the appellate Court would

interfere under Section 10F is if such conclusion was (a)against law or (b)

arose from consideration of irrelevant material or (c) omission to construe

relevant materials. (refer V.S.Krishnan & Others v. M/s Westfort Hi-Tech

Hospital Ltd., & Others cited supra).

86/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

82.In Purnima Manthena -vs- Renuga Datla case, reported in [2016

(1) SCC 237], the Supreme Court had eloquently said, “a question of law as

comprehended in Section 10F of the Act, would arise indubitable, if a

decision which is the foundation thereof, suffers from perversity, following

a patent error on a fundamental principle of law or disregard to relevant

materials or cognizance of irrelevant or non-germane determinants.”

83.Going by the explanation and meaning given by the Supreme

Court for the expression 'question of law' found in Section 10F of the Act,

this Court truly not able to find any question which satisfy the above test.

Most of the questions, does not beg for any answer since already duly

answered by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court in the earlier round

of litigation. The rest of the questions are not worth to interfere the well

considered order of CLB. This Court view that these appeals are yet

another act of oppression exercised by the appellants against the

respondents, by re-agitating the same cause in a different form through

87/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

VML to delay the in-evitable.

84.In the result, Company Appeal Nos. 5 to 10 of 2016 are dismissed

as devoid of merits. No order as to costs. Interim order stands vacated.

The Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

25.05.2021

Index:Yes Internet:yes/no ari

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

ari

Pre-delivery common judgment made in

88/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 and 4491, 4496 of 2021

Comp.Appeal Nos.5 to 10 of 2016 & C.M.P.Nos.12006 to 12009 of 2016, 2839, 12840 of 2016 & 4491, 4496 of 2021

25.05.2021

89/89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/