Secretary's termination appeal dismissed as repetitive attempt to seek Section 218 protection already rejected

The NCLAT dismissed an appeal where the appellant sought protection under Section 218 of the Companies Act, 2013 for reinstatement as Secretary of a Club following termination. The appellant argued termination violated Section 218(1)(b) requiring prior tribunal approval for employee removal. The NCLAT held the appellant was merely re-agitating issues already decided by the NCLT on 25.03.2021, where no relief was granted for setting aside termination or permitting continuance. The tribunal found subsequent applications were repetitive attempts to seek the same protection already rejected, with no grounds established to interfere with the NCLT's order dated 05.04.2024.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Tribunal's order dated 05.04.2024.
2. Application of Section 218 of the Companies Act, 2013.
3. Alleged concealment of relevant orders by the Appellant.
4. Procedural compliance with Rule 121 and Rule 150 of the NCLT Rules, 2016.
5. Conduct and allegations made by the Appellant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Tribunal's Order Dated 05.04.2024:
The appeal challenges the Tribunal's order dated 05.04.2024, which directed that CA-34/2024 and CA-88/2023 be listed on 03.10.2024. The Appellant argues that the Tribunal failed to decide CA-88/2023 despite directions from the NCLAT on 10.08.2023 and 11.01.2024 to dispose of the application at an early date. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had filed multiple applications, including CA-88/2023 and CA-34/2024, and that the Appellant had pursued CA-440/2022 rigorously, which was dismissed on 15.12.2023. The Tribunal observed that the Appellant's conduct and multiple filings had consumed significant court time, leading to the adjournment of CA-88/2023 and CA-34/2024 to 03.10.2024.

2. Application of Section 218 of the Companies Act, 2013:
The Appellant sought protection under Section 218 of the Companies Act, 2013, and reappointment as Secretary of the Club. The Tribunal had previously ruled on 25.03.2021 that the Appellant's termination was not covered by Section 218(1)(b) and that the Appellant could approach the Administrator for employment. This order was upheld by the NCLAT on 15.04.2021 and the Supreme Court on 03.12.2021. The Tribunal found that the Appellant's subsequent applications (CA-88/2023 and CA-34/2024) were a re-agitation of the same issues already decided.

3. Alleged Concealment of Relevant Orders by the Appellant:
The Respondent argued that the Appellant had concealed relevant orders, including the Tribunal's order dated 25.03.2021, the NCLAT's order dated 15.04.2021, and the Supreme Court's order dated 03.12.2021, which all pertained to the same subject matter as CA-88/2023 and CA-34/2024. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had not disclosed these orders in the appeal, leading to the conclusion that the Appellant was attempting to re-litigate issues already decided.

4. Procedural Compliance with Rule 121 and Rule 150 of the NCLT Rules, 2016:
The Appellant argued that the Tribunal violated Rule 121 and Rule 150 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. Rule 121 restricts legal practitioners or authorized representatives from appearing for a party whose interest is opposed to that of their former client without prior permission. The Tribunal found no foundation for this allegation. Rule 150 mandates that orders be pronounced within 30 days from the final hearing. The Tribunal acknowledged that the order was pronounced 45 days after the final hearing but held that this delay did not invalidate the order, as the requirement is directory, not mandatory.

5. Conduct and Allegations Made by the Appellant:
The Tribunal addressed the Appellant's conduct, noting that the Appellant had sent an email containing serious allegations against various parties and the Registry. The Tribunal observed that such emails were inappropriate and unacceptable, causing unwarranted stress on the Tribunal's functioning. The Tribunal also noted that the Appellant's counsel had advised the Appellant to tender an apology for the email, which had not been done. The Tribunal emphasized that litigants should not use the Tribunal for mudslinging and should focus on the adjudication of their cases.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the Appellant's applications were re-agitations of issues already decided, the Appellant had concealed relevant orders, and the procedural delay in pronouncing the order did not invalidate it. The Tribunal also criticized the Appellant's conduct and the inappropriate use of emails to make allegations.

---