TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 95
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (IA Nos.1073 & 1074/2023) [Justice Rakesh Kumar] Member (Judicial) And [Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. E. Om Prakash, Sr. Adv. For Mr. Rajagopal Vasudevan, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. T.K. Bhaskar, Mr. Vijay Paul, Mr. Pranav Gopalakrishnan & Mr. Niranjan S Rao, Advocates For R1-R4 ORDER ( Virtual Mode ) Heard Mr. E. Om Prakash, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Rajagopal Vasudevan, learned counsel for the appellant. Since in all the aforesaid appeals same order of the NCLT has been assailed, all the appeals were taken up together and are being disposed by a common order. The appellant before the NCLT had primarily raised objection that before filing of the joint application under Section 213, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ain petitions are filed under section 213,241 and 242 of the companies Act 2013 Section 244 (1) (a) of Companies Act, 2013 permits the petitioners to join in a single company petition. The objection raised in this regard is technical in nature. 4. On the applicant side restricted the argument, only to the applicability of Rule 23A of NCLT Rules 2016 to obtain leave of the Tribunal to file a joint petition under sections 241 & 242 of the Companies Act 2016. On the basis of both side submission the following points are framed for consideration: The point for consideration is as follows: (i) Whether the prior permission of Tribunal under Rule 23A of NCLT Rules 2016 is necessary to file petition by more than one person under section 241 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ules 2016. The company petitions are liable to be dismissed and the supra defects cannot be permitted to be cured by a belated petition. The point for consideration is as follows: (i)Whether the post facto permission can be granted? 7. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as mentioned in 1.A.No.32,33,& 34 of 2019. Further the pleadings involved in all the applications and issue for determination in all the applications are similar, hence it is decided to pass the following COMMON ORDER Point No. 1 in L.A.No.32,33, & 34 of 2019: 8. On the applicant side argued that Rule 23A is mandatory provision, the non- compliance of said Rule is fatal to the main petitions. Further submitted that the said permission should o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned under section 244(1)(b) of the Companies Act 2013, from the Tribunal. 13. The four Respondents herein, who filed the main petitions have requisite shareholdings to file the petition under section 241 of the Companies Act 2013. Section 244 is inbuilt section, hence once the conditions mentioned therein is full filled the petition under section 241 can be filed. 14. There is no bar to file a single petition by more than one person if the cause of action is same and relief sought is common and not prayed individually. Jainder of petitioners in the petition filed under section 241 of the companies Act 2013 is akin to Order I of Code of Civil Procedure 1908. There it is defined when the joinder of more than one plaintiff is permissible. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion under Rule 23A of NCLT Rules 2016 requires if more than one person having a separate cause of action. There is a difference between the same cause of action and a similar cause of action, if the petitioners having a same cause of action permission under Rule 23A of NCLT Rules 2016 is not required, if the petitioners have a different cause of actions and similar cause of action prior permission is required. 18. In our case the four petitioners in the main petitions are having same cause of action and filed the petition with common prayer, hence prior permission under Rule 23A is not necessary. Thus, this point is answered. Point:1 in L.A.No.54.55. & 53 of 2023: 19. In view of the answer arrived to point in L.A.No.32,33, & 34 of 201....