TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is filed by original Respondent No.4 of TCP No.29/2016 (C.P. No.78 of 2008) which was before the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai (NCLT in short) and which was filed by the present respondents (original petitioners) complaining of oppression and mismanagement. The company concerned is Raji Feeds Private Ltd-(Original Respondent No.1). A copy of the Company Petition at Annexure-8 shows that there were total 29 respondents in the company petition. Only Respondent No.4 on being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed this appeal without making the other respondents party to this appeal except arraying the original petitioners. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, and, learned counsel for respondents ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....if the certified copy is seen. Under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, ("Act" in brief), the appeal has to be filed within 45 days from the date on which the copy of the order of the Tribunal is made available to the person aggrieved. The Proviso to sub-section (3) states that the Tribunal may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty five days from the date aforesaid, but within a further period not exceeding 45 days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within that period. Proviso of Section 421 of the Act are quite clear. After the first 45 days which is period given to file the appeal, the next 45 days would require sufficient cause to be shown. This ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said order has been filed. The counsel argued that the appellant had handed over all his documents to an Advocate he had engaged for appearing in the NCLT. The Advocate for appellant submitted that in NCLT junior of that Advocate had filed Vakalatnama but that Advocate himself did not appear. The counsel was unable to show any steps taken by the appellant to contact his said Advocate or follow up with his Advocate regarding the matter which was pending. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has mentioned in the appeal as a ground para 9(c) that the appellant had entrusted the papers but further dates and information were not shared with him by the Advocate. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to make me believe that he has got grounds to raise and documents to show in his favour which also he will disclose only in NCLT, and so I should set aside the impugned order. I find that the appellant does not make out any real ground which would justify setting aside of the ex parte proceeding. The impugned order shows that it was a matter which was pending earlier before Company Law Board and then before the NCLT from 2008 till 2018 when the impugned order was passed. There is no material to show that in such period of almost a decade the appellant made any effort to bring on record of NCLT what case he wants to put up or that he be give a chance. It is very easy to blame an Advocate (whose name is also not disclosed) and saying that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s No.2 and 3, it appears, were erstwhile Managing Director and Director. It also considered the counter statement filed by Respondent No.29 (Appeal Page 158) and kept in view the material which was before NCLT and concluded in para 32 of the impugned order as under:- "From the above, it is clearly established that the Respondent Nos 4 to 29 have never contributed to the capital of the 1st respondent company. They have allotted shares of the 1st Respondent Company to themselves and became the Directors by excluding the actual shareholders by forging the documents on the letter head papers of the 1st respondent company, which were given as blank for keeping with the Respondent Nos.4 and 5, as security for dues owed by the 1st respond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t directorship or shares. 9. Even if it was to be accepted for a moment that the appellant handed over his documents to the Advocate for defending him in NCLT, looking to the manner in which filings are done before ROC, nothing prevented the appellant from getting the necessary certified copies from the office of the ROC to prima facie show as to how he came to be put in charge of the management of the affairs of the company. The appointment of the directors are required to be confirmed in the General Body Meeting. If shares are transferred, there is procedure prescribed for the same. Nothing is shown how original shareholders transferred shares. In the present matter what the NCLT has found from the filing done was that the shareholders....