TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 394
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....72, Sri Maha Laxmi Meadows, A-1501, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad-4, as Chairperson to conduct Board Meetings and Annual General Meetings for the year 2014-15, 2015-16 of Gagan Aerospace Limited. (ii) We hereby appoint Seshachalam & Co., Chartered Accountants, "Wall Street Plaza", 1-11-256, ICICI Building, St. No. 1, Begumpet, Hyderabad-16 as Auditor in the present case and his fee will be decided by the consultation with the Chairperson. (iii) The Learned Chairperson is directed to fix dates and venues suitably, after discussing the issue with the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 & 3 and give advance notices to all the concerned parties. (iv) The Petitioner as well as Respondents No. 2, 3, & 4 are directed to extend full co-operation to the Learned Chairperson and Auditor to discharge their duties. (v) The Learned Chairperson is also directed to take all relevant records and make available those records to the Respondent No. 2 & 3. (vi) The Learned Chairperson's fee is fixed at Rs. 25,000/- for Board Meetings and Rs. 50,000/- to Annual General Meetings which is to be borne by Respondent No. 1 Company apart from other expenses. (vii) We direct the Auditor to take up aud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 27.02.2017 made in CA/73/97/HDB/2016, particularly with respect to directions mentioned at para. 3 supra. 7. The 3rd Respondent, filed Counter, inter-alia, contending that, subsequent to order of this Tribunal dated 27.02.2017, the Applicant visited the Registered Office of R-1 Company on several dates and inspected the Books of Accounts and provided all the documents sought by him. The Auditor appointed by this Tribunal i.e. M/s. Seshachalam & Co., Chartered Accountants vide this Tribunal order dated 27.02.2017 however resigned on 08.02.2018 owing to his personal preoccupations. 8. It is contended that the Applicant herein has filed three Company Applications bearing CA No. 51, 52 & 53 of 2018 in Company Application No. 73/97/HDB/2016 with the following prayers, wherein the 3rd Respondent was arrayed as R-2 therein. CA No. 51/2018: 1. To hold a preliminary enquiry about the false statement made by Respondent, as contained under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. and direct the office concerned to proceed against the Respondent in appropriate court having criminal jurisdiction under Section 191 and 193 of IPC. CA No. 52/2018: 1. To punish Dr. Subba Rao (R-2) for willful contempt (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4.2019 passed in CA No. 53/2018 in CA No. 73/97/HDB/2016. (iii) Company Appeal (AT) No. 200/2019 against the order dated 16.05.2019 passed in CA No. 365/2018 in CA No. 73/97/HDB/2016. The said appeals are still pending before Hon'ble NCLAT. 12. In response to the allegation of the Applicant that the 3rd Respondent did not extend co-operation to the Chairperson and Auditor of R-1 Company and that no records were provided to the Chairperson/Auditor, the 3rd Respondent stated that the directions of this Tribunal was complied with by creating a separate data room for the purpose of providing data to the Chairperson and the auditor and access to the Applicant as well and further deny the allegation by the Applicant that R-3 has illegally retained several records of R-1 Company. 13. The 3rd Respondent contended that the tally back up data cannot be provided to the Applicant as it is impermissible under Section 128(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, however the Applicant was informed to approach the Chairman for the access. 14. It is also stated by 3rd Respondent that since certain information is of highly confidential, sensitive nature and relating to security and strategic concern....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....20. Prestige Lights Limited Vs. State Bank of India - (2007) 8 SCC 449 observed at para 24 that "A person who disobeyed the court order has not right of being heard by the Court until or otherwise the Court's order has been complied". As such the 3rd Respondent should not be heard by this Tribunal till he complies with the directions of this Tribunal. 21. Therefore, in the above backdrop, the point for consideration is "Whether the directions as sought for by the Applicant can be passed?". 22. We have heard the Ld. PCS for the Applicant Shri S. Chidambaram, PCS and Shri Y. Suryanarayana, Ld. Counsel for Respondent-3. POINT: Whether the directions as sought for by the Applicant can be passed? 23. Admittedly, the order of this Tribunal dated 27.02.2017 being a consent order, both sides shall ensure compliance of the terms without any deviation what so ever. While it is the case of the Applicant that the Respondents 2 & 3 viz. the Chairman appointed by this Tribunal for the 1st Respondent Company and the 3rd Respondent who is the promoter/Director of the 1st Respondent have breached the directions (iv), (v), (viii), (ix) and (x) of the consent order dated 27.02.2017, given ....