TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 1144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Upmanyu, Advocates JUDGEMENT JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) The present appeal has been preferred under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 against an order dated 23.02.2022 passed by Learned National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as NCLT) in Misc A. No.1065/KB/2018 in CP No.30/2014. 2. By the said order learned NCLT has issued directions for implementation of order dated 3rd August, 2017 passed by the NCLT in CP No.30/2014. The operative part of the order is quoted hereinbelow:- "25 Heard the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and perused the records. It is pertinent to mention that no appeal was preferred by the Judgment Debtors against the Order dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 28. The quorum shall consist of one shareholder present either in person or by proxy Attendance at such meetings shall be recorded in the minutes of the meetings. 29. Notice shall be issued to all the shareholders in accordance with section 101 of the Companies Act, 2013. 30. Covid-19 protocols and precautions in terms of directions issued by the Government and other public authorities shall be strictly adhered to at such meeting. Since the AGM could not be held in time due to the non-cooperation on the part of the Judgment Debtor Nos. 2-4, the default in not conducting the AGM within the stipulated time is hereby condoned and the Company and the petitioner being its officer shall not be visited with any adverse conseque....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 235, 397, 398, 399, 402, 406 and 407 of the Companies Act, 1956 alleging oppression and mismanagement of the company namely Respondent No.3/ Teesta Torsa Chemicals Pvt Ltd. The said petition was finally decided in favour of the applicant (Respondent No.1 herein). By an order dated 3rd August, 2017 the learned NCLT while setting aside of the allotment of shares and removal of the applicant/Respondent No.1 herein from the Board of Directors directed the appellant herein to cooperate with the applicant/respondent in operation of bank account and filing statutory compliances of the company in question. It is further evident that since the order passed by the NCLT was not implemented the Respondent No.1 herein filed an application under Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as the Company has no outstanding due against the Cash Credit Account and Term Loans. 4. Before the NCLT after filing of the petition which was numbered as Misc A. No.1065/KB/2018 the appellants herein appeared and filed reply. However, Finally they did not participate in the proceeding before the NCLT. However, finally the learned NCLT allowed the application by its order dated 23.02.2022 which we have already quoted hereinabove. 5. Aggrieved with the impugned order the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants. 6. In appeal it has been reiterated that the impugned order was passed ex-parte against the appellant. It has further been claimed that in a petition filed under Section 424(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....022. 9. Mr Abhijit Sinha, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 besides referring to facts stated in the reply of Respondent No.1 has vehemently argued that it is not a case in which ex-parte order was passed. From the order impugned it is reflected that learned NCLT has considered the submission of all the parties and thereafter impugned order was passed. He further submitted that in the proceeding before the NCLT in Misc A. No.1065/KB/2018 the appellants herein appeared and filed their reply. They participated in the proceeding, however, subsequently to the reasons best known to them at the time of final hearing they did not appear and as such it cannot be inferred that the impugned order was ex parte order. He further submits that in th....