Dismissal of Appeals Against NCLT Orders on IL&FS Mismanagement & Funds Transfer

The appeals against the impugned orders dated 26.04.2019 and 04.09.2019 by NCLT, Mumbai Bench were dismissed. The relief sought for setting aside these orders and directions to de-seal accounts was not granted. The court found that the appellants, including individuals accessing joint lockers without knowledge of the NCLT order and transferring funds in alleged disobedience, could be subjected to relevant sections of the Companies Act, 2013. Allegations of mismanagement and mis-governance by IL&FS Group entities, including siphoning funds and drawing hefty salaries, were considered. The comparison with a Supreme Court judgment regarding preventive steps against fraud supported the decision to dismiss both appeals without costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against impugned orders dated 26.04.2019 and 04.09.2019 passed by NCLT, Mumbai Bench.
2. Relief sought for setting aside impugned orders and direction to de-seal accounts.
3. Operation of joint lockers without knowledge of NCLT order.
4. Transfer of funds to daughter's account and wilful disobedience of NCLT order.
5. Allegations of mismanagement and mis-governance by IL&FS Group entities.
6. Charges against Mr. Ramesh.C.Bawa for siphoning funds and drawing hefty salaries.
7. NCLT restraint order on alienating properties owned by erstwhile directors.
8. Transfer of funds to company where appellant is a director.
9. Comparison with a Supreme Court judgment regarding preventive steps against fraud.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appellants filed separate appeals against impugned orders dated 26.04.2019 and 04.09.2019 by NCLT, Mumbai Bench. The relief sought included setting aside these orders and directions to banks to de-seal accounts.

2. Mrs. Asha Kiran accessed joint lockers without knowledge of NCLT order, claiming personal belongings like jewelry were kept in them. The appellant argued that being a 3rd party, she cannot be subjected to orders under relevant sections of the Companies Act, 2013.

3. Miss. Aakanksha Bawa was impleaded for transferring funds to her account, allegedly in wilful disobedience of NCLT order. Similar to the previous appellant, she contended that being a 3rd party, she should not be subjected to the mentioned sections of the Companies Act.

4. The Union of India highlighted mismanagement in the IL&FS Group, leading to defaults and catastrophic impacts on the economy. Charges were brought against Mr. Ramesh.C.Bawa for siphoning funds and drawing hefty salaries.

5. NCLT restrained erstwhile directors, including Mr. Ramesh.C.Bawa, from alienating properties. The director argued that the appellants were necessary parties for effective decrees due to their involvement in the affairs of the IL&FS Group.

6. Mr. Ramesh.C.Bawa's transfer of funds to a company where the appellant is a director raised suspicions of mismanagement or fraud, as per the Director's submission.

7. The judgment compared the case with a Supreme Court ruling regarding preventive steps against fraud. It emphasized that impleading a party does not imply guilt but aids in effective adjudication. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed without costs.

---