2018 (1) TMI 431 - AT - Companies Law

NCLT denies late applications in Company Petition No. 46/2006, stresses promptness in legal proceedings.

Shri Ashok Mittal And Smt. Neeru Ashok Mittal, Mumbai Versus Uniworth Resorts Ltd., Shri Shyam Sunder Gindoria, Shri Nimish Mahindra Kumbhani, Shri Sujit Sarkar, Touchstone Housing Projects Private Ltd., Uniworth Securities Limited, Shri Ajay Prakash Lohia, Shoreline Infrastructure Developers Limited And Mr. Prashan Chinappa Suvarna

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) rejected applications for impleadments and amendments in Company Petition No. 46/2006 due to belated filings and ... Petition pending before NCLT since 2006 - Held that:- Section 422 of the Companies Act 2014 expects the NCLT to dispose of the petition in three (3) months and here, more than a decade has passed. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders which have been passed. The above impugned orders are speaking for themselves and it is apparent that the Appellants were not permitted amendments or impleadments for reasons recorded and no fault can be found with these orders. In such petition of 2006 which is being dragged even after a decade, such lack of promptness as referred above cannot be entertained. Appellants is trying to show that Responders were responsible for the delay in the matter and according to him, the Respondents attending the matter at times causing delay and when the matter reaches crucial stage, suddenly, the Respondents appear and seek time on various counts. It is stated by him that because of this, the Company Petition is being delayed. If the Respondents are resorting to any delaying tactics, it would be for the learned NCLT to take suitable steps so that the matter is not delayed because of delaying tactics adopted by any of the parties. We are not going into the general statements being made. We are concerned with the specific details of the present impugned orders. Going through them, we find that this appeal does not merit admission. On the face of the record, there is no reason to interfere in the impugned order which have been passed. Issues:1. Rejection of applications seeking impleadments and amendments by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).2. Delay in disposal of Company Petition No. 46/2006.3. Dismissal of applications for impleading parties in a belated stage.4. Displeasure expressed by NCLT regarding the manner of seeking orders.5. Allegations of delaying tactics by the Respondents.6. Lack of promptness in the proceedings.Analysis:1. The Appellants had filed multiple applications seeking impleadments and amendments in Company Petition No. 46/2006 before the NCLT. The Counsel argued that the Appellants were wrongly blamed for prolonging the matter due to events like the transfer of company property and issuance of shares without notice, leading to a petition of oppression and mismanagement. The history of applications for amendments from 2006 to 2012 was highlighted to justify the necessity of the rejected applications relating to subsequent events.2. The NCLT's impugned orders dismissed the applications for impleadments and amendments citing belated filings and lack of valid reasons, emphasizing the need for promptness in disposing of the petition. The NCLT expressed dissatisfaction with the Appellants' approach and the delay in resolving the matter, ultimately declining the admission of the appeal due to the lack of interference warranted in the impugned orders.3. The NCLT's scrutiny of the applications for impleading parties revealed a lack of diligence on the part of the Appellants in pursuing the matter promptly. The belated nature of the filings, without valid reasons, led to the dismissal of the applications, with the NCLT emphasizing the importance of timely actions and the availability of information in official portals for obtaining necessary documents.4. The NCLT expressed displeasure at the Appellants' attempt to influence the manner of passing orders in one of the applications, deeming it a violation of judicial norms and an abuse of the legal process. This stance further reinforced the NCLT's insistence on adherence to legal procedures and decorum in presenting applications before the tribunal.5. Allegations of delaying tactics by the Respondents were raised, attributing the prolonged proceedings to their actions. However, the NCLT emphasized its role in ensuring the timely resolution of disputes, irrespective of the conduct of the parties involved, and declined to entertain general statements about delaying tactics without specific details relevant to the impugned orders.6. The overall lack of promptness in the proceedings, spanning over a decade from the filing of the petition, was a significant concern highlighted by the NCLT. The NCLT underscored the importance of expeditious resolution of company petitions, as mandated by the Companies Act 2014, and concluded that the impugned orders, despite the Appellants' arguments, did not warrant interference or admission of the appeal due to the lack of grounds for intervention.