Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an order passed by a single Judicial Member is valid when the matter had been heard by a two-member Bench, and whether such an order is sustainable in the absence of authority under the governing provisions.
Analysis: Section 419(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 requires the Tribunal to exercise its powers through Benches consisting of two Members, one Judicial and one Technical. The proviso permits a single Judicial Member to function only where the President has, by general or special order, authorised that class of cases. No such authorisation was shown. Rule 151 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 permits pronouncement by any Member on behalf of the Bench, while Rule 152 applies where the Member who heard the matter is unavailable and the order has been duly prepared and signed by all Members who heard the case. The impugned order did not satisfy either provision.
Conclusion: The order passed by the single Member was invalid and could not stand. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: An adjudicatory order is legal validity if a matter heard by a statutorily required two-member Bench is decided by a single Member without the President's authorisation or compliance with the rules governing pronouncement by another Member.