TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1509
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Company Appeals and three Contempt Cases have been heard together and are being decided by this Common Judgment. 2. These Appeals and Contempt Cases disclose a severe legal fight between two groups namely 'Khosla Group' and 'Bakshi Group'. The Appellants/Applicants before us are the members of Khosla Group and the Contesting Respondents before us are the Members of Bakshi Group. There is a chequered history of litigation between the parties. The matter has travelled to the Apex Court and this Tribunal on several occasions. In spite of fond hope expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Judgement, the dispute between the parties could not be finally adjudicated till date. During pendency of the main dispute between the parties, filing of several Company Applications, Interlocutory Applications under Section 340 of Cr. P.C. and Contempt Applications have overshadowed the main dispute and the time of both the Courts 'National Company Law Tribunal' and this 'Appellate Tribunal' have been consumed in deciding various Interlocutory Applications and peripheral disputes between the parties. These Appeals and Contempt Applications have stemmed from a Company Petition filed by Khosl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on 18.12.2007 wherein Mr. Deepak Khosla and Mr. R.K. Garg were inducted as the Additional Directors and allotment of 6.58 lakh equity shares to the Khosla Group. An Application was filed in Company Petition No. 114 of 2007 by Bakshi Group in which an Order dated 31st January, 2008 was passed by the Company Law Board directing for maintaining "Status-Quo" with regard to the composition of the board and the shareholding as existed on the day of filing of the Petition and directed the Registrar of Companies not to take on record any documents filed by the Company on or after 01.12.2007. The shares issued on 18.12.2007 were cancelled as well as the Additional Directors appointed on 11.12.2007 and 18.12.2007 were ceased to be Additional Directors with immediate effect. The Order dated 31st January 2008 was challenged by Mr. R.P. Khosla and Ms. Sonia Khosla by way of Appeals before the Delhi High Court which Appeals were dismissed on 11th April, 2008 and 22nd April, 2008. Review Petitions filed by Mr. R.P. Khosla and Ms. Sonia Khosla to review Judgment of the Delhi High Court was also dismissed on 06th May, 2008. One Mr. R.K. Garg who was also appointed as an Additional Director in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is only after the decision of CLB, whereby the respective rights of the parties are crystallised, it would be possible to know about the future of this project. Even the Company in question is also defunct at present as it has no other business activity or venture. In a situation like this, we are of the opinion that more appropriate orders would be to direct the parties to maintain status quo in the meantime, during the pendency of the aforesaid company petition before the CLB. However, we make it clear that if any exigency arises necessitating some interim orders, it would be open to the parties to approach the CLB for appropriate directions. 24. Both these petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All other pending I.As including criminal contempt petitions and petitions filed under Section 340 Cr. PC are also disposed of as in the facts of this case, we are not inclined to entertain such application. No costs." 5. After the above Order dated 08th May, 2014, the matter proceeded before the Company Law Board in the CP No. 114 of 2007. Several Company Applications filed by the parties were pending consideration at the time when Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er was heard by Division Bench in Court No. IV consisting of Dr. Deepti Mukesh and Shri Hemant Kumar Sarangi. Appellant-Khosla Group by an Order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority were permitted to withdraw CP No. 114 of 2007 and to revive the same after carrying out correction within a period of three days. Several other Company Applications were filed by the Appellant in CP No. 144 of 2016 which were heard since September, 2020 by the Bench consisting of Dr. Deepti Mukesh and Mr. Hemant Kumar Sarangi. One Company Application No. 731 of 2020 was filed by the Khosla Group for impleadment of Vineet Khosla which was rejected on 11.02.2021. TP No. 03 of 2021 and TP No. 07 of 2021 were also filed by the Appellant which was decided on 31st May, 2021 by Acting President. A Section 8 Application i.e. Company Application No. 533 of 2020 was filed by Bakshi Group in CP No. 144 of 2016 which was allowed by Order dated 31st May, 2021 by the Adjudicating Authority by the Bench consisting of Dr. Deepti Mukesh and Mr. Hemant Kumar Sarangi. 7. Now we proceed to notice the facts and submissions in all the three Appeals separately as well as the facts and submissions in three ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts and circumstances of the case, we request the National Company Law Tribunal, Court No. IV, New Delhi, to dispose of the matte with utmost expedition keeping in view the orders passed by the Higher Forums. The Tribunal shall make all endeavors to dispose of the matter preferably within two weeks." 10. In the Application, the Applicant has also referred to an Order dated 21st May, 2018 of Delhi High Court in Co. A (SB) 26/2008. In the Transfer Petition, details of various other proceedings undertaken by the Adjudicating Authority has been noticed. Reference to earlier Transfer Petition No. 03 of 2021 has also been made in paragraph 18 of the Application. In the Transfer Petition No. 07 of 2021, the Applicant had pleaded delay in disposal of the various applications. In view of the facts stated in the Company Petition, the prayers were made in Transfer Petition No. 07 of 2021 which has already been extracted above. Transfer Petition was heard by the Acting President and by the Impugned Order dated 31st May, 2021 has been disposed of. 11. Mr. Deepak Khosla, Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the Order dated 31st May, 2021 passed on Transfer Petition No. 07 of 2021....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....foresaid Bench on 23.09.2019. CA-1838(PB)/2019 stands disposed of. 15. One of the grounds which have been taken by the Appellant is that the Order was to hear the Company Petition by Bench No. IV headed by Dr. Deepti Mukesh, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) hence the Bench consisting of Dr. Deepti Mukesh and Mr. Hemant Kumar Sarangi ought not to have heard the matter. 16. We have noticed the prayer made in TP No. 07 of 2021. The prayers made in the Company Petition has been also quoted in the Impugned Order and the Learned Acting President has observed in paragraph 4 that there is no relief in prayer portion asking for transfer of entire Company Petition from Court No. IV to some other Bench. It is useful to extract the observations made by Learned Acting President in the Impugned Order: "4. Looking at the relief sought in this application, it is evidence that there is no relief in the prayer portion asking for transfer of entire Company Petition from Court No. IV to some other Bench except asking for re-assignment of the Petition to a Division Bench that has logistical capability to not only decide CA-18 OF 2019 but also to complete the adjudication of Petition wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Court in Company Application No. 533 of 2020 observed "C.A. No. 553/2020: For further arguments on 23.11.2020". Further Order sheet dated 23.11.2020 also indicate that matter was heard. When the Bench consisting of above two members was continuously hearing various Applications in Company Petition No. 144 of 2016, we are of the view that filing of Transfer Petition by Appellant for the prayers as noted above was wholly uncalled for. The Appellant in his Application for Transfer, on one hand is complaining of non-disposal of the various applications including applications for Interim Reliefs and on the other hand is filing transfer petition No. 03 of 2021 and 07 of 2021, without their being any justified grounds. The Order passed by the Acting President in this Appeal is an Order passed in exercise of power under Rule 16(d) of NCLT, Rules, 2016. Rule 16(d) of NCLT Rules, 2016 provides as follows: "16(d) transfer any case from one Bench to other Bench when the circumstances so warrant;" 18. The president in exercise of the power under Rule 16(d) has passed the Order with regard to which no exception can be taken in this Appeal. The Acting President has noticed in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s fully competent to decide the Company Petition. Order dated 31st May, 2021 passed by the Acting President does not require any interference in exercise of our Appellate Jurisdiction. 19. Company Appeal (AT) No. 32 of 2022 This Company Appeal has been filed by Mr. R.P. Khosla challenging the Order dated 31st May, 2021 passed by Court No. IV, Special Bench, NCLT, New Delhi in Company Application No. 553 of 2020 in C.P. No. 144 of 2016 by which Order the Adjudicating Authority has allowed the Application 553 of 2020 filed by Respondent Mr. Vikram Bakshi under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Company Application No. 553 of 2020 was filed by Mr. Vikram Bakshi (Respondent No. 2 to the Company Petition No. 144 of 2016) under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 praying to refer the parties to Arbitration in light of the Arbitration Clause contemplated in Clause 29 of the Agreement dated 31st March, 2006 executed among the parties. In the Company Application No. 553 of 2020, dated 22nd September, 2020 following prayers have been made: "It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the Hon'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent No. 1-Vikram Bakshi filed Rejoinder to Section 8 Application, written submissions and additional written-submissions were also filed by the parties. On 26.11.2020 arguments were heard on Section 8 Application and Orders were reserved. On 31st May, 2021 memo of parties was filed by the Respondent Vikram Banshi in relation to his Company Application 553 of 2020 at 02:38 PM on 31st May, 2021, the Order was passed at 03:00 PM allowing Company Application No. 553 of 2020 and referring the parties to Arbitration under Section 8 as prayed in Section 8 Application. Aggrieved by the Order dated 31st May, 2021, this Appeal has been filed by Mr. R.P. Khosla. In the Appeal, 40 Respondents have been impleaded, by an Order on a prayer made by Learned Counsel for the Appellant, Respondent No. 8 to 40 (in Company Appeal (AT) No. 32 of 2022) were deleted from the array of parties. The Appellant proposed not to serve the said Respondents. 22. Mr. Deepak Khosla challenging the Order dated 31st May, 2021 in support of this Appeal made various submissions. It is contended that the Order dated 31st May, 2021 is void order delivered by Coram non judice. It is submitted that the Order which is null....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also made various submissions with regard to the minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors of the Company. Allegation of fraud regarding the minutes have also been canvassed. It is submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Appellate Tribunal has directed for deciding the Company Petition 114 of 2007 and 144 of 2016, there was no occasion to entertain or allow Section 8 Application by the Adjudicating Authority. Mr. Deepak Khosla has submitted that the memo of parties of Company Application No. 553 of 2020 was received by the Court at 02:38 PM and the Order in C.A. No. 553 of 2020 was delivered at 03:00 PM which clearly indicates that there was nexus between the Respondent and the Members of the Bench since Order was pronounced at 03:00 PM after receiving the mail at 02:38 PM. It is submitted that memo of parties which was filed by Respondent at 02:38 PM contains the same mistakes and error which is contained in memo of parties filed in the Company Petition. 23. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-Mr. Jai Savla refuting the submissions of Learned Counsel for the Appellant supports the Order dated 31st May, 2021 passed by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uestions arise for consideration in this Appeal: (i) Whether, against the Order dated 31st May, 2021 passed by NCLT in Company Application No. 553 of 2020 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in C.P. No. 144 of 2016 under Section 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, this Appeal is maintainable under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013? (ii) Whether the Impugned Order dated 31st May, 2021 allowing the Section 8 Application in C.P. No. 144 of 2016 filed under Section 241 and 242 of the Companies Act is a valid order passed in accordance with the law ? 26. We may first notice provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which are relevant in the present case. Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides for the power to refer the parties to Arbitration where there is an Arbitration Agreement. Section 8(1) is as follows: "8(1). A judicial authority before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party so applied not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the parties to arbitration." 27. Section 37 of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. (2) No appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal form an order made by the Tribunal with the consent of parties. (3) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within a period of forty five days from the date on which a copy of the order of the tribunal is made available to the person aggrieved and shall be in such form, and accompanies by such fees, as may be prescribed; Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of 45 days from the date aforesaid, but within a further period not exceeding forty-five days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within that period. (4) On the receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the Appellate Tribunal shall, after giving the parties to the appeal a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or setting aside the order appealed against. (5) The Appellant Tribunal shall send a copy of every order made by it to the Tribunal and the parties to appeal." 30. Above provision indicate that any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on under Section 7 of IB Code, in the backdrop of Indus Biotech seeking for the resolution of dispute through arbitration and the Arbitration Petition to that effect was already pending before this Court as on the date the order was passed by the NCLT. It is only in this special circumstance we have proceeded to entertain the petition and examine the matter on merits." 32. The above judgment is clearly applicable with regard to the Appeal provided under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 against an Order of NCLT. The above Judgement clears all doubts with regard to the maintainability of the Appeal against the Order dated 31st May, 2021 under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013. We thus hold that present Company Appeal No. 32 of 2022 filed against the Order dated 31st May, 2021 is maintainable and hence had to be decided on merits. 33. We now proceed to examine as to whether the Application CA 533 of 2020 in C.P. No. 144 of 2016 filed under Section 241/242 of the Companies Act, by the Respondent No.1 could have been allowed by the NCLT. 34. We may first notice Section 241 and 242 of the Companies Act under which provision C.P. No. 144 of 2016 was filed. Section 241(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udice to the generality of the powers under sub-section (1), an order under that sub-section may provide for- (a) the regulation of conduct of affairs of the company in future; (b) the purchase of shares or interests of any members of the company by other members thereof or by the company; (c) in the case of a purchase of its shares by the company as aforesaid, the consequent reduction of its share capital; (d) restrictions on the transfer or allotment of the shares of the company; (e) the termination, setting aside or modification, of any agreement, howsoever arrived at, between the company and the managing director, any other director or manager, upon such terms and conditions as may, in the opinion of the Tribunal, be just and equitable in the circumstances of the case; (f) the termination, setting aside or modification of any agreement between the company and any person other than those referred to in clause (e): Provided that no such agreement shall be terminated, set aside or modified except after due notice and after obtaining the consent of the party concerned; (g) the setting aside of any transfer, del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erent nature of disputes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down following in paragraph 35 and 36: "35. The Arbitral tribunals are private fora chosen voluntarily by the parties to the dispute, to adjudicate their disputes in place of courts and tribunals 18 which are public fora constituted under the laws of the country. Every civil or commercial dispute, either contractual or non-contractual, which can be decided by a court, is in principle capable of being adjudicated and resolved by arbitration unless the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals is excluded either expressly or by necessary implication. Adjudication of certain categories of proceedings are reserved by the Legislature exclusively for public fora as a matter of public policy. Certain other categories of cases, though not expressly reserved for adjudication by a public fora (courts and Tribunals), may by necessary implication stand excluded from the purview of private fora. Consequently, where the cause/dispute is inarbitrable, the court where a suit is pending, will refuse to refer the parties to arbitration, under section 8 of the Act, even if the parties might have agreed upon arbitration as the forum for settle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (iii) Matters of guardianship; (iv) Insolvency and winding up; (v) Testamentary matters, such as the grant of probate, letters of administration and succession certificates; and vi) Eviction or tenancy matters governed by special statutes where a tenant enjoys special protection against eviction and specific courts are conferred with the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the dispute. This Court held that this class of actions operates in rem, which is a right exercisable against the world at large as contrasted with a right in personam which is an interest protected against specified individuals. All disputes relating to rights in personam are considered to be amenable to arbitration while rights in rem are required to be adjudicated by courts and public tribunals. The enforcement of a mortgage has been held to be a right in rem for which proceedings in arbitration would not be maintainable. In Vimal Kishore Shah v. Jayesh Dinesh Shah[14], this Court added a seventh category of cases to the six non-arbitrable categories set out in Booz Allen, namely, disputes relating to trusts, trustees and beneficiaries arising out of a trust deed and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Vs. Durga Trading Corporation" a three judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt in detail non-arbitrability of a dispute. Referring to and relying on the Judgment of "A. Ayyasami" (supra) in paragraph 40 of the Judgment. Court laid down as under: "40. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. in A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam and Others,18 referring to the dictum in Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc., has made two important comments: "35...This Court held that this class of actions operates in rem, which is a right exercisable against the world at large as contrasted with a right in personam which is an interest protected against specified individuals. All disputes relating to rights in personam are considered to be amenable to arbitration while rights in rem are required to be adjudicated by courts and public tribunals... xx xx xx 38. Hence, in addition to various classes of disputes which are generally considered by the courts as appropriate for decision by public fora, there are classes of disputes which fall within the exclusive domain of special fora under legislation which confers exclusive jurisdiction to the exclusion of an ordinarily civil court. That su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... forum is either completely denied or could be curtailed. In essence, it is necessary to examine if the statute creates a special right or liability and provides for the determination of each right or liability by the specified court or the public forum so constituted, and whether the remedies beyond the ordinary domain of the civil courts are prescribed. When the answer is affirmative, arbitration in the absence of special reason is contraindicated. The dispute is non- arbitrable." 58...........However, non-arbitrability may arise in case the implicit prohibition in the statute, conferring and creating special rights to be adjudicated by the courts/public fora, which right including enforcement of order/provisions cannot be enforced and applied in case of arbitration. To hold that the claims of banks and financial institutions covered under the DRT Act are arbitrable would deprive and deny these institutions of the specific rights including the modes of recovery specified in the DRT Act. Therefore, the claims covered by the DRT Act are non-arbitrable as there is a prohibition against waiver of jurisdiction of the DRT by necessary implication. The legislation has overwritt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect matter of the dispute, which are arbitrable. 42. The broad categories of disputes which are considered to be non arbitrable are penal offences which are visited with criminal sanction; offences pertaining to bribery / corruption; matrimonial disputes relating to divorce, judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights, child custody and guardianship matters, which pertain to the status of a person; testamentary matters which pertain to disputes relating to the validity of a Will, grant of probate, letters of administration, succession, which pertain to the status of a person, and are adjudicated by civil courts. 43. Certain categories of disputes such as consumer disputes41; insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings; oppression and mismanagement, or winding up of a company; disputes relating to trusts, trustees and beneficiaries of a trust42 are governed by special enactments." 44. From the above discussion, it is clear that the remedy provided under the Companies Act, 241 and 242 is a specific statutory remedy which has to be decided by the Tribunal in accordance with law. The issues which has been raised in Application under Section 241 and 242 are issues....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich Applicant/Appellant has prayed to be impleaded as Petitioner No. 7 in the Company Petition. 47. Mr. Deepak Khosla, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that no affidavit in opposition has been filed hence the Appeal be allowed. It is submitted that the claim of Mr. Vineet Khosla as Shareholder as of today is reflected from various materials on record. He was appointed as Director on 11.12.2007 and allotted share on 18.12.2007. Mr. Khosla submits that Company Petition No. 114 of 2007 having been withdrawn with effect from 07.02.2020 it is clear that orders passed by a Judicial Forum including the Hon'ble Supreme Court stand vacated which also includes the Order dated 31st January, 2008. Mr. Vinnet Khosla has right to seek impleadment as co-petitioner and Impleadment Application was not filed to delay the proceedings. 48. By noticing the background facts, we have noticed that Appellant-Vineet Khosla was inducted as a Director on the strength of the Board Meeting dated 18.12.2007. Respondents have challenged the Board Meeting dated 18.12.2007 alleging the meeting illegal and not in accordance with law. The Company Law Board had passed an Order on 31st January, 2008 dir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tor, only on the ground of his or her membership, obtains right to join proceedings under Section 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013. No specific acts or averments of oppression and mismanagement are made with respect to the proposed petitioner no. 7-application herein. The petition under Section 241-242 filed by any person qualifying under Section 244 not only decide the rights of the members (even though they are not party to proceedings) but also it decides the rights of parties in rem. v. Present petition is filed by the company along with members/directors or petitioner no. 1-company, which generally is not the case. Thus the interest of all members will be taken care of, albeit without being joined in the proceedings. If the arguments of the applicant are accepted that he has qualified to be impleaded as a party in proceedings under Section 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013, merely because he is a member of the company as described under Section 2(55) of the Companies Act, 2013, then every member may need or file such application, at any stage of the proceedings and the main petition may not see the light of the day ever. vi. There is no even a whisper abou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the Appellant. There is no error in the Order dated 11.02.2021. Contempt Case (AT) No. 05 of 2019 52. This petition is styled as composite petition under Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (1) of Section 340 of CRPC r/w Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013. The applicant in this Contempt Application has prayed for initiation of proceedings under Sub-section (2) of Section 340 of CRPC for perjury and for initiation of Criminal Contempt under Section 425 of the Companies Act. 53. There is checkered history of dispute between the two warring groups, Khosla Group and Bakshi Group as noticed above. The original applicant - Ms. Sonia Khosla has filed Company Petition No.114 of 2007 of oppression and mismanagement against the Bakshi Group in which various applications were filed and matter travelled to Delhi High Court and then to Hon'ble Supreme Court. The prayers for initiating proceedings under Section 340(1) and (2) of CRPC are being made for in the application on following basis:- i. For perjury in terms of the falsehoods set out in CA No. 01 of 2008 filed on 01.01.2008 before the NCLT; ii. For perjury in terms of the falsehoods set out in the affidavi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....own and approved by all including the petitioner herein." 57. We have noticed that Company Petition No. 114 of 2007 was the genesis of all disputes between the parties and filing of different applications before the NCLT, initiation of proceedings before the Delhi High Court and before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 08.05.2014 had clearly mentioned that the Company Law Board where Company Petition No. 114 of 2007 was pending will decide application under Section 340 of CRPC filed by Ms. Sonia Khosla. Hon'ble Supreme Court directed for considering the Company Petition No. 114 of 2007 by the Company Law Board and all applications under Section 340 of the CRPC were also directed to be considered by the Company Law Board. The Supreme Court clearly mentioned that it is Company Law Board which will decide application under Section 340 of the CRPC and the Delhi High Court may not proceed with Criminal Misc. (Co.) No. 3 of 2008. Para 21 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court notices submissions of the parties, various proceedings between the parties and observations of the Courts, which is to the following effect:- "21. In fact, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... three days. We have already noticed the prayers made in CA No. 01 of 2008, which was filed for recall of the order dated 24.12.2007. Subsequent to order dated 24.12.2007, Company Law Board passed an order on 31.01.2008, afterwards which order was unsuccessfully challenged by Ms. Sonia Khosla and Mr. R. P. Khosla in Delhi High Court. The averments in CA No. 01/2008, as noticed above, on basis of which the applicant is claiming initiation of proceedings under Section 340 of CRPC against the Respondent are essentially the case of the Respondent which was taken before the Company Law Board by the Respondent. The Respondents have claimed in Para 7 that they were validly appointed as directors of the company, which was confirmed in the Annual General Meeting held on 30.09.2006. The Appellants' case in its various affidavits and pleadings is to challenge the holding of Annual General Meeting dated 30.09.2006. It is strenuously contended by the Appellant that Ms. Sonia Khosla was not present in the meeting and her presence was wrongly shown. Whether the case of the Respondent as taken in CA No. 01 of 2008 is correct or the allegations of the Appellant regarding the Annual General Meeting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s rejected. 62. We have noticed that in contempt application, the applicant has impleaded Respondent No. 4 and 5, who were appearing as advocates for the Respondent Group. The Respondent No. 4 and 5 have been termed to be Proforma Respondents/Prospective Accused/ Non-Applicants. We are of the view that impleadment of Respondent No. 4 and 5 in the contempt application was wholly inappropriate and uncalled for. We direct deletion of names of Respondent No. 4 and 5 from the array of parties of the Contempt Application. Contempt Case (AT) No. 12 of 2019 63. This Contempt application has been filed by Mr. R. P. Khosla praying for initiation of proceedings under Section 340 Sub-section (1) of CRPC in terms of falsehoods set out in the affidavit dated 20.02.2017 filed before this Appellate Tribunal and the Written Submissions filed by the Respondent. Further, prayer has been made to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 on allegations of falsehoods set out in the affidavit dated 20.02.2017 filed before this Appellate Tribunal. 64. We have already noticed the averments of the affidavit dated 20.02.2017 while deciding Contempt Case (AT) No. 0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lminated into final judgment by order dated 12.04.2017. By order dated 12.04.2017 this Tribunal issued various directions to the NCLT for hearing Company Petition expeditiously and other Company Applications pending in the Company Petition No. 114 of 2007. With regard to application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act being CA No. 362 of 2007, this Appellate Tribunal held that application under Section 8 which was filed in the year 2007 has become infructuous and it is not necessary for the Tribunal to pass an order under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. In Para 19 of the order following has been stated: "19. From the aforesaid fact what we find is that though the petition under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation, 1996 Act is pending since 2007, but in the meantime parties moved before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and pursuant to Order dated 28th February, 2008, the arbitrators were appointed and Tribunal started functioning. In view of such appointment of arbitrators already made under section 11, the petition under Section 8 which was filed in the year 2007 p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts Act, 1971. In filing Section 8 application by the Respondent being CA No. 553 of 2020 in Company Petition No. 144 of 2016, we do not find any violation of directions of this Appellate Tribunal dated 22.12.2016 and 12.04.2017. The order dated 22.12.2016 was an interim order which stood merged when final directions were passed on 12.04.2017. There is no direction in the order dated 12.04.2017 restricting the Respondent from filing Section 8 application. This contempt application is wholly misconceived and deserves to be rejected. We further notice that Applicant has impleaded Respondent No. 2 and 3 as alleged contemnors who were the counsel appearing for the Respondent before the NCLT. We are of the view that impleadment of Advocates of the Respondent as Contemnors was wholly inappropriate and uncalled for. The Contempt Case No. 08 of 2021 is rejected. 72. From the facts and discussion as above it is clear that Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 08.05.2014 has directed for disposal of Company Petition No. 114 of 2007 which decision would have decided all the disputes between the parties relating to application filed for oppression and mismanagement. In spite of the direct....