Tribunal dismisses CA 47/2016, citing res judicata, non-retrospective effect, and lack of unfair prejudice.

The Tribunal dismissed CA 47/2016 without costs, ruling that the application is barred by constructive res judicata as the applicant previously had the opportunity to raise the issue of disqualification but did not do so. It held that the disqualification provisions of Sections 164 and 167 of the Companies Act 2013 do not have retrospective effect. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the applicant's case under Sections 397 and 398 did not demonstrate unfair prejudice due to the alleged non-compliance with Sections 164 and 167.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether this CA is hit by res judicata.
2. Whether the disqualification set forth in Section 164(2)(a) r/w 167(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2013 has retrospective effect.
3. Whether the applicant can seek NCLT to declare that R4 & R5 cease to continue as directors in terms of Sections 164(2)(a) r/w 167(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2013 in the CP filed u/s 397 and 398 of the Companies Act 1956/u/s 241 & 242 of the Companies Act 2013.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether this CA is hit by res judicata:
The applicant previously filed CA 201/2015 seeking similar reliefs, including an injunction against R4 & R5 from acting as directors and the appointment of independent directors. The current CA 47/2016 also seeks to declare R4 & R5 disqualified from acting as directors due to non-filing of financial statements for five consecutive years. The High Court of Bombay set aside the CLB's order on CA 201/2015 and disposed of it with no order, leaving all rights and contentions open. The Tribunal concluded that since the applicant had the opportunity to raise the issue of disqualification in CA 201/2015 but did not, the current application is hit by constructive res judicata. The Tribunal emphasized that the applicant cannot raise the same issue based on a different legal ground after the previous application was disposed of.

2. Whether the disqualification set forth in Section 164(2)(a) r/w 167(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2013 has retrospective effect:
The applicant argued that the disqualification under Section 164(2)(a) and 167(1)(a) should apply retrospectively to the non-filing of financial statements for three consecutive years before the notification of these sections. The Tribunal referred to the Solicitor's Clerk case and the Ishwarnagar Co-operative Housing Building Society case, which established that posterior disqualification based on past conduct does not make a statute retrospective. The Tribunal held that non-filing of financial statements before the enactment of Sections 164 and 167 was not a default or an offence. Therefore, applying these sections retrospectively would be unfair and contrary to established legal principles. The Tribunal decided that the disqualification provisions do not have retrospective effect.

3. Whether the applicant can seek NCLT to declare that R4 & R5 cease to continue as directors in terms of Sections 164(2)(a) r/w 167(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2013 in the CP filed u/s 397 and 398 of the Companies Act 1956/u/s 241 & 242 of the Companies Act 2013:
The Tribunal emphasized that the test under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act 1956 (now Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act 2013) is the test of unfair prejudice, not the validity of actions under legal provisions. It noted that even if financial statements were not filed, it must be shown that such non-filing was prejudicial to the applicant's interests. The Tribunal found no evidence that the non-filing of financial statements caused any prejudice to the applicant. Moreover, the Tribunal stated that it does not have separate jurisdiction to determine issues under Sections 164 and 167 unless it is part of a scheme to cause prejudice. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that the applicant's case under Sections 397 and 398 does not hold merit based on the alleged violation of Sections 164 and 167.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed CA 47/2016 without costs, holding that the application is hit by constructive res judicata, the disqualification provisions do not have retrospective effect, and the applicant's case under Sections 397 and 398 does not establish unfair prejudice based on the alleged non-compliance with Sections 164 and 167.

---