Tribunal Allows Withdrawal and Filing of New Waiver Application, Clarifies Procedural Rules

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the first waiver application to address technical defects and permitted the filing of a new waiver application. It clarified the applicability of procedural rules, dismissed allegations of perjury, and recognized the impact of a respondent's death on the proceedings. The filing of the second waiver application during the pendency of the first was deemed legal. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeals and closing the related interim applications for stay.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the withdrawal of the first waiver application (CP/29/CHE/2021).
2. Compliance with procedural rules under the NCLT Rules, 2016.
3. Allegations of perjury and procedural lapses.
4. Applicability of Rule 44 and Rule 82 of the NCLT Rules, 2016.
5. Impact of the death of one of the respondents on the proceedings.
6. The legality of filing a second waiver application (CP/95/CHE/2021) during the pendency of the first waiver application.
7. The principle of natural justice and the opportunity to be heard.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Withdrawal of the First Waiver Application (CP/29/CHE/2021):
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the first waiver application (CP/29/CHE/2021) based on the petitioners' request to address technical defects and bring on record new material facts. The Tribunal found that the withdrawal was justified and permitted the petitioners to file and proceed with a new waiver application (CP/95/CHE/2021).

2. Compliance with Procedural Rules under the NCLT Rules, 2016:
The Tribunal examined the compliance with Rule 44 and Rule 82 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. It concluded that Rule 44(2) allows withdrawal of an application before the hearing stage and does not mandatorily require hearing the opposite party. The Tribunal found that the first waiver application had not reached the hearing stage, and thus, Rule 44 was applicable.

3. Allegations of Perjury and Procedural Lapses:
The appellants alleged that the respondents committed perjury by filing affidavits with incorrect dates and not following the required procedures. However, the Tribunal noted that these allegations were not substantiated with sufficient evidence, and the procedural lapses did not impact the merits of the case.

4. Applicability of Rule 44 and Rule 82 of the NCLT Rules, 2016:
The Tribunal clarified that Rule 82 applies to the withdrawal of applications filed under Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013, and not to waiver applications under Section 244. Since the first waiver application was not yet heard, Rule 44(2) was applicable, allowing the withdrawal.

5. Impact of the Death of One of the Respondents on the Proceedings:
The Tribunal acknowledged the death of one of the respondents (Mrs. M.V. Valli Murugappan) and noted that the offence of perjury abates on the death of the accused, as per Section 394(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the allegations of perjury against the deceased respondent did not survive.

6. The Legality of Filing a Second Waiver Application (CP/95/CHE/2021) During the Pendency of the First Waiver Application:
The Tribunal found that the filing of the second waiver application (CP/95/CHE/2021) was permissible as the first waiver application (CP/29/CHE/2021) was withdrawn to address technical defects. The Tribunal allowed the second waiver application to be taken on record and directed that any objections to it be considered at an appropriate stage.

7. The Principle of Natural Justice and the Opportunity to be Heard:
The Tribunal provided a reasonable opportunity for the parties to present their arguments. It noted that the appellants were given time to file their submissions and were heard before the impugned order was passed. The Tribunal found no violation of the principles of natural justice.

Disposition:
The appeals (Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 54 of 2021, Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 4 of 2022, and Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 6 of 2022) were dismissed, and the impugned order dated 29.09.2021 was upheld. The connected interim applications for stay were also closed.

---