2019 (12) TMI 193

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... after hearing both sides, the following order was passed on 18th November, 2019. "Let the Prothonotary & Senior Master issue a telephonic notice, as also by email ([email protected]) and hand-delivery to the Registrar of National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, respondent No.2 in this petition, requesting him to remain present before this Court on 20-11-2019 at 3.00 p.m., with all original records concerning the case in which an Order is purportedly passed by the Tribunal on 22-10-2019 being C.P. (IB) No.4375/NCLT/MB/2018." 2. On 21st November, 2019, after the matter was called out, Mr.R.V.Govilkar, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, tendered the original record. 3. However, what is tendered before this Court y....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rules which are applicable to the proceedings. 8. The rules that have been pressed into service are to be found in the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016. Our attention is invited to Rule 150 of the Rules. It reads as under:- "150. Pronouncement of Order.- (1) The Tribunal, after hearing the applicant and respondent, shall make and pronounce an order either at once or, as soon as thereafter as may be practicable but not later than thirty days from the final hearing. (2) Every order of the Tribunal shall be in writing and shall be signed and dated by the President or Member or Members constituting the Bench which heard the case and pronounced the order, (3) A certified copy of every order passed by the T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....there was no date of pronouncement notified. There was no board prepared of the proceedings and particularly, the pronouncement of the order in open Court. There was no intimation to the parties and that the petitioner's advocate was in the Court, but no pronouncement was done. Interestingly, according to Mr.Dwarkadas, there is an endorsement at pages 547A and 547B that the pronouncement was made after the board was prepared. However, there is no contemporaneous record of this board having been notified. In fact, the contra record is that this board is prepared later. Mr.Dwarkadas sought to tender an affidavit of the petitioner affirming these allegations. 10. Mr.Ravi Kadam, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the contestin....