2025 (11) TMI 1210 - AT - Companies Law

Appeal in oppression and mismanagement case under Sections 241-242 fails; merger doctrine blocks review attempt

Uday Ved Versus Union of India

NCLAT dismissed the appeal in an oppression and mismanagement matter arising from proceedings under Sections 241-242 initiated by the Union of India based ... Doctrine of merger - Oppression and mismanagement - Appellant was impleaded in proceedings under Section 241 and 242 filed by the Union of India on the basis of SFIO Investigation Report - HELD THAT:- When the order passed by NCLT dated 18.07.2019 was challenged by the Appellant in Company Appeal in 215/2019 which appeal was heard and dismissed on merits by this Tribunal. The order dated 18.07.2019 has merged with the Appellate Order and mere fact that appellant filed an appeal in the Supreme Court which was withdrawn shall have no effect on the merger of the order dated 18.07.2019 with the Appellate order. Order dated 18.07.2019 does not continue to available to the appellant for filing any application to review or recall the judgment. On this ground, the order rejecting the CA No. 121/2022 has to be upheld. Moreover, the Counsel for the Appellant has made much emphasis on the order passed by Supreme Court in cases of Neera Saggi and Renu Challu [2021 (2) TMI 1390 - SC ORDER]. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Company Appeal of Neera Saggi and Renu Challu was delivered by the Supreme Court on 15.02.2021 in Civil Appeal No. 2841/2020. The appeal was allowed and matter was remanded for NCLT to apply its mind and issue as to whether the Appellant was to be impleaded. When the appeal of the Appellant came for consideration on 12.03.2021. Appellant thereafter filed an affidavit and it was only thereafter on 05.04.2021 the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Thus, the arguments which is pressed before us that in the similar matters, the Supreme Court in Neera Saggi and Renu Challu has remanded the matter was raised before the Supreme Court itself and in spite of the said judgments the appeal was prayed to be withdrawn and has been dismissed and withdrawn. Appeal dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether an application to recall/review an order of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) is maintainable after that order has been challenged and the resulting appellate order of the Tribunal has become final (i.e., merged with the original order) following dismissal of the appeal. 2. Whether the dismissal of a Civil Appeal in the Supreme Court as 'withdrawn' - accompanied by a statement that the appellant may pursue appropriate remedies before the Adjudicating Authority and that the Court expresses no opinion on those remedies - prevents merger of the original Adjudicating Authority order with the appellate order or otherwise preserves a right to seek recall/review of the original order. 3. Whether reliance on a subsequent Supreme Court judgment in separate but factually similar matters - in which impleadment was remanded for reconsideration - entitles an appellant, in identical factual circumstances, to have a previously dismissed appeal re-opened or its recall/review application entertained. 4. Whether impleadment of an individual can be sustained on the ground of being an independent director where the individual was not a member of the Audit Committee relied upon in the investigation report. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Maintainability of recall/review application after appellate order merges with the original order Legal framework: The principle of merger/finality of orders where a lower forum's order is challenged and the appellate forum decides the appeal on merits; procedural law governing review/recall remedies before the Adjudicating Authority. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal treated the appellate dismissal on merits as effecting merger of the original NCLT order with the appellate order, thereby depriving the appellant of a fresh remedy by way of recall/review before the NCLT against the original order. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal reasoned that once the Tribunal heard the appeal against the NCLT order and dismissed it on merits, the NCLT order stood merged into the appellate order, and the original order no longer remained available as a live, independent adjudicatory instrument capable of being recalled or reviewed by the NCLT. Allowing recall/review of the original order after it has been merged would allow re-litigation contrary to finality principles. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the Tribunal's holding that a recall/review application before the Adjudicating Authority is not maintainable once the original order has been merged into a final appellate order decided on merits. Conclusions: The application to recall/review the Adjudicating Authority order was not maintainable and rejection on this ground was upheld. Issue 2 - Effect of dismissal of a Supreme Court appeal as 'withdrawn' preserving right to pursue remedies before NCLT Legal framework: Effect of dismissal as withdrawn; appellate practice where withdrawal is accompanied by preservation of rights to pursue other remedies; interplay between appellate withdrawal and finality/merger doctrines. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's order disposing of the appeal as withdrawn with an express record that the appellant might pursue appropriate remedies before the Adjudicating Authority and that the Court expressed no opinion on those remedies. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal construed the withdrawal order as not altering the merger effect already produced by the appellate dismissal on merits. The statement preserving the right to pursue remedies in the Adjudicating Authority did not revive the original NCLT order as an independent order capable of being the subject of recall/review after it had merged with the appellate order. The Tribunal observed that the withdrawal merely left open procedural avenues without nullifying the finality achieved by the appellate decision. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - a Supreme Court dismissal of an appeal as withdrawn, with a reservation preserving the appellant's right to seek remedies before the Adjudicating Authority, does not negate merger where the appellate forum has decided the appeal on merits; it does not render maintainable a recall/review application attacking an order that has merged with a final appellate order. Conclusions: The Supreme Court's dismissal-as-withdrawn and the preservation statement did not entitle the appellant to maintain a recall/review application; the merger principle bars such re-litigation. Issue 3 - Reliance on a subsequent Supreme Court judgment in separate, similar matters to reopen or obtain reconsideration of impleadment Legal framework: Effect of precedential decisions in related fact-situations; principle of equal treatment where parties are similarly situated; limits of retrospective application when prior proceedings have become final. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal acknowledged that a later Supreme Court judgment in separate appeals (concerning other individuals) remanded their matters for reconsideration of impleadment. The appellant relied on parity of position with those individuals. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether the later decision could assist the appellant. It noted that, where the appellant had already pursued appellate remedy and thereafter withdrew a further appeal following directions from the Supreme Court (to file an affidavit and having done so), the appellant effectively allowed the appellate process to conclude without obtaining the remand relief that was granted in the other matters. The Tribunal held that the appellant's subsequent withdrawal and the final disposition precluded reopening the matter on the basis of the later decision in separate appeals. In short, a favorable ruling in another appeal does not automatically reopen a concluded appeal of a different appellant who had an opportunity to press the same argument before final disposal. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - a subsequent decision in separate but similar appeals does not entitle an appellant, whose appeal was dismissed/withdrawn after due opportunity, to recall/review the earlier Adjudicating Authority order; parity of relief requires that the appellant remain within the procedural posture in which the opportunity to seek reconsideration was available. Conclusions: Reliance on the later Supreme Court judgment concerning other individuals did not afford relief; the appellant's procedural choices and the final disposition blocked reliance on that decision to reopen the case. Issue 4 - Validity of impleadment where impleadment was based on membership of an Audit Committee but the individual impleaded was an independent director not on that Committee Legal framework: Standards for impleadment in oppression/management proceedings under the Companies Act; relevance of SFIO investigation findings and the nexus required between the person impleaded and the alleged misconduct or role. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal noted the appellant's contention that impleadment was unjustified because the SFIO report implicated independent directors who sat on the Audit Committee, whereas the appellant was an independent director but not a member of that Committee. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal did not find merit in the appellant's challenge on this ground, implicitly accepting the view that impleadment may be justified where the investigative report connects the person to relevant aspects of the corporate governance or alleged misconduct. The Tribunal's prior appellate adjudication on merits had addressed the impleadment issue and dismissed the appeal, thereby treating the impleadment as sustainable in the factual record before it. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where an appellate forum has considered and dismissed challenges to impleadment on merits, the matter attains finality; objection that an impleaded independent director was not on a specific committee relied upon in the investigation does not, without more, negate the basis for impleadment if the investigative report links the person to relevant matters. Conclusions: The challenge to impleadment on the ground of non-membership of the Audit Committee was insufficient to overturn the prior appellate decision; the Tribunal found no merit in re-opening the impleadment issue.