TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1621
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the instant Company Appeal bearing e-filing No. 9805111/01470/2024. The Appeal was e-filed by the Appellant on 12.07.2024. He alleged grievances against the impugned order dated 28.05.2024 passed by the learned NCLT, Bengaluru Bench in Company Appeal Nos. 16 & 16A of 2021, in CA No. 09/2023 in Contempt Petition No. 154/BB/2019. The relief sought by the Appellant in the Company Appeal was to set aside the impugned order dated 28.05.2024 passed in Contempt Petition No. 154/BB/2019, to direct the Respondents to transfer interest at the rate of 18% amounting to Rs. 87,56,210/- to the Applicant, and to pass an order imposing costs of the litigation. The Affidavit filed in support of the said Company Appeal was shown to have been verified by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the defects were not rectified by the Appellant, the Company Appeal was dismissed by this Appellate Tribunal under Rule 26 (3) & (4). 5. After the dismissal of the Appeal on 25.02.2025, the Appellant, appearing in person, stated that he had not engaged any counsel to prefer the Appeal, nor had he filed the instant Appeal bearing the stated e-filing number. Consequently, we called upon Mr. Fahad Khan, the learned counsel whose signature appeared in the vakalatnama and on the Memorandum of Appeal, to respond to the Appellant's statement that he had never instructed him to file the Appeal. The Registry conducted an enquiry and found that the said Company Appeal was filed by one Mr. Sankar Varadharajan. 6. Accordingly, by an order dated 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st.com is solely responsible for this Act. And fraud filling is done with malafied intensions to cause loss to us. Respondent is also involved in false fraud filling done in this Hon'ble Court." 8. However, upon enquiry by the Registry, it was found that the Company Appeal had been presented only by Mr. Sankar Varadharajan, the learned counsel, with mobile number 9791169369. An Affidavit from Mr. Sankar Varadharajan was called, and as recorded earlier, he stated that he acted solely on the oral instructions of Mr. Fahad Khan, the counsel on record. Consequently, an order dated 13.06.2025 was passed, directing the Registry to trace the whereabouts of Mr. Fahad Khan through the Bar Council of Delhi which is extracted hereunder: - ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed along with the Appeal. He stated in his Affidavit that the Appellant had approached him for legal advice for filing an Appeal against the impugned order dated 28.05.2024. He further submitted that in July 2024, two Company Appeals (CA AT 50/2024 and 51/2024) had been filed by him before the NCLAT, Chennai Bench on the Appellant's instructions, which have remained pending for a considerable period. 11. Regarding the instant Company Appeal, he submitted that several advocates from different offices were approached by the Appellant for filing the Appeal, including Mr. Avadh Narayan, Mr. Vishal, Ms. Aparna Vishal, Mr. S.A. Shanmugham, and Mr. Fahad Khan himself. He stated that the details of the Appeal filed on 12.07.2024 were shared with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....secution for falsely implicating the counsels he had engaged. 15. The Affidavit of Mr. Fahad Khan reflects that the Appellant had been in constant contact with him over a long period for legal advice and professional services, and that he had appeared for the Appellant in other pending Appeals. Thus, the Appellant cannot now claim that he had never engaged Mr. Fahad Khan, particularly when the Memorandum of Appeal and the vakalatnama clearly show that he did so. 16. The records do not reveal any professional misconduct on the part of Mr. Sankar Varadharajan, who acted on the oral instructions of Mr. Fahad Khan, or on the part of Mr. Fahad Khan himself, who filed the instant Company Appeal on the instructions of the Appellant. Rather, ....