Skip to main content

NCLAT: When application merits waiver under Companies Act

In Anant Kajare v. Eknath Aher, decided on 30-11-2017, the appellant has challenged the order dated 14th July, 2017 passed by National Company Law, Tribunal, Chennai Bench wherein the Tribunal granted ‘waiver’ under the proviso to Section 244(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. According to the Tribunal, the petitioner had made out the case for grant of waiver under Section 244.

The NCLAT, New Delhi, while adjudicating the grant of waiver by the Tribunal, opined that the impugned order had been passed in a mechanical manner by the Tribunal without considering any exceptional circumstances to allow the application for ‘waiver’ under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 244, the Tribunal has not applied its mind as to whether (proposed) application under Section 241 merits consideration and whether it relates to ‘oppression and mismanagement’.

NCLAT also explicitly held in Cyrus Investments case that The Tribunal is required to take into consideration the relevant facts and evidence, as pleaded in the application for waiver under Section 241 and required to record reasons reflecting its satisfaction to suggest that the applicants have made out some exceptional case for waiver and to form opinion on whether the proposed allegation pertains to ‘oppression and mismanagement’ of the company or its members.

Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2017/10/18/nclat-lays-factors-forming-opinion-whether-application-merits-waiver/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more