AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 162
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it and for the time being in force. 3. The Tribunal(s) constituted under Section 408 of the Companies Act, 2013, they perform a judicial function determining the rights and liabilities of the parties to the proceedings depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, and are judicial proceedings as per sub-section (4) of Section 424 of the Companies Act. 4. Any Body, which has been constituted under a Statute and discharges an adjudicatory functions, its procedure is required to be governed by specific law, in order to attach a principle of fairness and adherence of principle of natural justice, so as to remove any iota of bias which may or even if there is possibility of bias to creep in, in the functioning of the body which discharges these adjudicatory functions and since Tribunal being a Judicial Body, having been conferred with the powers to draw contempt, its functions and duties are to be performed in the light of the provisions and procedures contained under Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013. Section 424 of the Companies Act is extracted hereunder:- "Section 424. Procedure before Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal. (1) The Tribunal and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e purposes of section 196 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be civil court for the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)". If Section 424 which extracted above is taken into consideration, in its sub-section (2) it provides for that the Tribunal(s) thus constituted under the Act has the same powers as they are vested with the Civil Court and any orders, which are passed by Tribunal shall have the same force as a decree, made by the Court in a Suit, which would be enforceable, in the similar manner as that of a decree by invocation of the provisions contained under Order XXI of the C.P.C. 5. If sub-section (1) of Section 424 of the Companies Act, is taken into consideration, it lays down that the basic principles of adjudication would be governed by the principles of natural justice and would be bound by the procedure those had been widely laid down under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, initially prior to the amendment by Act No. 31 of 2016, the said principles of adjudication based upon the principles of natural justice and under the procedure ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hearing the appeal." 8. The prime question for consideration, which would be falling for consideration by us in the instant Company Appeal would be, as to whether at all, without complying with the provisions of Rule 44, which to be read with Order XLI Rule 12 of C.P.C., can the Tribunal proceed to decide a Company Petition, without notifying the date fixing date for hearing, which is necessary, in order to enable the parties to know the roaster and purpose of proceedings of the business of the Court, for deciding the case. 9. The short dispute in the instant case happens to that, the Appellants had preferred the instant Company Appeal being aggrieved as against the impugned order of 31.07.2025, as it was rendered by the Ld. NCLT in IA (IBC) / 743 / CHE / 2024 preferred in MA / 653 / 2018 in CP / 185 / IB / CB / 2018. 10. The case of the Appellants before this Appellate Tribunal is that, the Appellant No. 1, who alleges to be the former employee of M/s. Raj Internet Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor, which later on underwent a Liquidation process, as per the provisions of the I & B Code, 2016 and the Appellant No. 2 claims to be the wife of the Appellant No. 1. Since,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tely when on 23.09.2022, the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant to the MA / 653 / 2018, were directed to verify the transaction and audit report before this Tribunal regarding the veracity of the statement that were made in the counter of Respondent No. 1 therein i.e. Baskaran Sathya Prakash and Anr. 17. The proceedings revived on 30.10.2023. Its from this stage, the controversy will start germinating, as far as the instant Company Appeal is concerned. In the proceedings in MA / 653 / 2018 as held on 30.10.2023, the Ld. Tribunal has observed as under: "Ld. Counsel Mr. Badri Narayanan is present for the Applicant and Ld. Counsel Ujjwal is present for Respondent No. 1. Pleadings are complete in the matter. Arguing Counsel for the Respondent is stated to be not available. At request, list this Application for hearing on 14.12.2023." 18. Apparently from the above order it is clear that, the Tribunal observed that the pleadings are complete between the parties. However, since the Respondent was not available on the said date, and it was at the request of the Applicant's Counsel, the next date fixed was on 14.12.2023. The order of 14.12.2023, which requi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....after taking instructions from the Liquidator. List the application along with MA/653/2018 on 01.03.2024." 23. In the order of 13.02.2024, the Ld. Tribunal has rather fixed a date of 01.03.2024 on the application. In the meantime, what is reflected from the order itself of 13.02.2024 that in MA / 653 / 2018 which is the application preferred by the Respondent under Section 43 & 44 of I & B Code, 2016, an IA (IBC) / 388 (CHE) / 2024 was preferred by the Appellant for taking on record the Board Resolution dated 14.10.2016 of Corporate Debtor. It is this Application, which in fact, was directed to be heard on 01.03.2024 along with MA / 653 / 2018. 24. The grievance of the Appellant is that, when the Tribunal had fixed on 01.03.2024 for hearing of the Application i.e. IA (IBC) / 388 (CHE) / 2024 and MA / 653 / 2018, quite obviously there was neither any hearing nor conclusion of argument nor reserving of Order nor even any date was fixed for pronouncement of the Order, that means, the Appellants' IA (IBC) / 388 (CHE) / 2024 was yet to be considered on merits. 25. However, one fact which the Appellants has not brought on record and for the reasons best known that, when....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 90 of 2024. Acceding to the said request, the instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 90 of 2024 is 'Dismissed as Withdrawn'. No costs. Before parting with the case, this 'Tribunal' makes it quite clear that the 'dismissal of the instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 90 of 2024 will not preclude the 'Appellants', to move before the 'Adjudicating Authority' / National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-I, Chennai for seeking redressal of their grievances of course, in the manner known to 'Law' and in accordance with 'Law' if they so desire advised." 29. It's upon passing of this Judgment by this Appellate Tribunal on 11.03.2024, that the Appellant had filed an Application, being IA (IBC) / 743 / CHE / 2024, seeking recall of the order dated 19.02.2024 as passed in MA / 653 / 2018 as preferred in CP / 185 / IB / CB / 2018. This Application IA (IBC) / 743 (CHE) / 2024 seeking recall of the order dated 19.02.2024 has been dismissed by the impugned order, observing thereof that, since there is no power of review is vested with the Ld. Tribunal, the order of 19.02.2024, cannot be reviewed by filing of an Application i.e. IA (IBC) / 743 / CHE / 2024, which was pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e been heard ex-parte and concluded nor the order sheet of 14.12.2023, reflects that the order was reserved to be pronounced on 19.02.2024. The reason could be best known to the Tribunal how the Application were preponed for 19.02.2024, when by the order dated 13.02.2024, next date fixed was for 01.03.2024. 32. In fact, the order even does not show that, when the Appellant has filed an Interlocutory Application being IA (IBC) / 388 (CHE) / 2024 for taking additional documents on record, none of the orders at any point of time shows that, the Tribunal has ever taken care in any of its orders of considering the Application i.e. IA (IBC) / 388 (CHE) / 2024 filed by the Appellant and decided it on merits and rather on record there happens to be no order passed by the Tribunal on the said Application for taking additional documents on record the Board Resolution dated 14.10.2016. 33. Failure to pass any order on it for taking additional documents i.e. Board Resolution on record, as prayed for by the Appellant will itself vitiate the proceedings as to be actuated by non-application of mind, because, it was mandatory for the Tribunal that, when the proceedings of 14.12.2023 was held....