National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
R. Prasanth vs Ubc Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 9 July, 2019
1
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
COMPANY APPEAL(AT) NO.256 OF 2017
(ARISING OUT OF JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 6.2.2017 PASSED BY
NATIONAL COMPANY LAWA TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI IN TCP
NO.36/397, 398/NCLT/MB/2014).
IN THE MATTER OF:
R. Prasanth.
Flat No.202,
Sai Garden CHS Ltd,
Plot 18, Sector 5, Kharghar
Navi Mumbai 410210 Appellant
Vs
1. UBC Engineers Pvt Ltd,
Plot No.G-36, Sector 20,
Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400614.
2. Mr. K.N. Pillai,
Managing Director,
UBC Engineers Pvt Ltd,
Plot No.G-36, Sector 20,
Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400614.
3. Mr. Kailash Barde,
Director,
UBC Engineers Pvt Ltd,
Plot No.G-36, Sector 20,
Belapaur, Navi Mumbai 400614.
4. Mr. Pramod N. Pillai,
Director,
UBC Engineers Pvt Ltd,
Plot No.G-36, Sector 20,
Belapur, Navi Mumbai 400614.
5. Mr. Mohammed Salim,
UBC Engineers Pvt Ltd,
Plot No.G-36, Sector 20,
Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400614.
Respondents
For Appellant: Shri Shaijan C George, Advocate.
For Respondents: Shri Krishnendu Datta, Ms Prachi Johri, Ms Prachi
Wazalwar, Shri Anandh K, Ms Heeena Uichare, Ms Disha Shah and Ms
Shruti Iyer, Advocates.
Company Appeal(AT) No.256 of 2017
2
JUDGEMENT
( 9th July, 2019) Justice A.I.S. Cheema.
The appellant-original petitioner filed Company Petition No.No.36/2014 on 15.5.2014 before the Company Law Board, now National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT in short), Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, against the respondents claiming oppression and mismanagement. During the pendency of the company petition, the respondents filed Company Petition No.1/2016 against the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'Petitioner') and both the company petitions came to be disposed of by NCLT by the impugned order dated 6th February, 2017. NCLT found the Company Petition filed by the appellant to be not sustainable and the allegations of oppression and mismanagement made were found to be not proved. NCLT held the other Company Petition No.1/2016 filed by the respondents to have become redundant. The present appeal arises out of the dismissal of the Company Petition No.36 of 2014.
2. Briefly stated the appeal is more reproduction of the Company Petition and the reply filed by the respondents with arguments. The appellant claims that the Respondent No.1 M/s UBC Engineers Pvt Ltd (the Company) was incorporated on 20th April, 2005 and the registered office is situated at Plot No.G-36, Sector 20, Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400614. (Case put up before NCLT appears to be that Respondent No.2 was having proprietary concern "United Building Company and Appellant and Respondent No.3 were employees who joined respondent No.2 and Company was incorporated). In was incorporated to carry on business of undertaking various civil Company Appeal(AT) No.256 of 2017 3 construction contracts. The company is registered as a Government Contractor with the Military Engineer Services (MES) and is undertaking various projects of MES. The projects were being carried out at Kochi and Colaba, Mumbai. It is stated that (and not disputed) that the appellant and Respondent No.2, Mr. K.N. Pillai, and Respondent No.3, Mr. Kailash Barde were the first Directors. Mr. K.N. Pillai was allotted 52000 shares, Mr. Kailash Barde was allotted 24000 shares and the petitioner was allotted 24000 shares. Thus Mr. K.N. Pillai had 52% and the appellant and Respondent No.3 each had 24% shares. These three persons and Respondent No. 4 Mr. Parmod N. Pillai were the four directors. Mr. Parmod N. Pillai is son of Respondent No.2 and was inducted as Director on 1.2.2009. The petitioner claims that he was Director incharge of MES Project and was taking care of the same and not concerned with day to day Management of the company. Respondent No.5, Mohd. Salim is Accountant (thus Respondent No.2 to 4 are only the contesting Respondents). According to appellant-petitioner in March 2014 he had occasion to go through the statutory record of the company and found discrepancies and he looked into the record. He claims that there were serious lapses and instances of mismanagement. In short he has made the following allegations in the appeal (which were also made in the Company Petition):-
a) Firstly, that annual returns were submitted till March, 2011 with various errors which were brought to notice of Respondent No.5 but were not rectified;
b) Secondly annual returns for the financial year 2011-12 and 2012-13 were not filed;
Company Appeal(AT) No.256 of 2017 4
c) Thirdly registered office of the company was transferred by the company to the personal name of Respondent No.2 in the financial year 2007-2008. According to appellant in that year Respondent No.2 asked him to sign a document to replace/substitute office premises which was given as security for the purpose of enlistment with MES. The office premises was substituted by land of the company at Dighodea. The appellant claims that he did not ealise that the office premises was being transferred to Respondent No.2;
d) Fourthly, after fraudulently transferring the property of the company Respondent No.2 started collecting rent from the company for the premises on pretext that it was rented out to the company. There were not Board Resolutions for such actions;
e) Fifthly, from the registered office of the company four partnership firms namely (i) UBC Balaji Port Cane Works (ii) Omni Infrastructure Services (iii) Unibuild Engineers and (iv) Hepta Enterprises are functioning in which other than the appellant the other Directors have interest and the company is bearing expenses of those firms by them using the stationery, staff, salary etc;
f) Sixthly, Rs.1.50 crores were siphoned off from the company by Respondent No.2 towards material and labour of construction of his Bungalow at Plot No.144, Sector 21, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai;
g) Seventhly, Rs.15 lakhs was siphoned off by Respondent No.2 for addition and alteration work of a Bungalow at Kochi owned by his wife. Here also, manpower and construction material at the cost of the company was used;
Company Appeal(AT) No.256 of 2017 5
h) Eighthly, loan of Rs.24,10,000/- was given to M/s Unibuild Engineers, a partnership firm in instalments in which Respondent No.2 to 4 are partners. Section 185 of the Companies Act, 2013 (Act in short) was violated. Loan was given although the company itself was taking various loans from Banks for its functions.
3. The appellant further claims that on 12th March, 2014 he wrote an e- mail to Accountant, Respondent No.5, that his particulars had not been shown in Form No.20B. The appellant met Respondent No.2 on 18th March, 2014 and questioned the irregularities. The Respondent No.2 made counter allegations against the appellant claiming that he was neglecting the projects. Then Respondent No.2 served letter dated 1.4.2018 withdrawing the benefits of the appellant-petitioner. His remunerations were cancelled without giving opportunity to explain. Then he was served notice of EOGM to be held on 29.4.2014. The agenda was to remove him from Board of Directors. It appears that the appellant filed letter dated 22.4.2014 making various allegations as are now being made and claimed that he did not get sufficient time. It appears that due to the Companies Act, 2013 (Act-in short) coming into force the Respondents issued fresh notice dated 3.5.2014. Board Meeting was held on 12.5.2014 and EOGM was held on 6.6.2014 removing the petitioner from Board of Directors.
4. The appellant then goes on to refer to the pleadings made by the respondent in NCLT adding arguments as to how the same were wrong and the prayer of the appeal is to grant the prayer which were made in the company petition like seeking disqualification of Respondent No.2 to 4 as Directors; appointment of Receiver-Administrator; recovery of undue gains made by Company Appeal(AT) No.256 of 2017 6 Respondent No.2 to 4; directing the Respondent No.1 Company to buy shares of Respondent No.2 and 3 etc.
5. The Respondent filed reply in the NCLT and after the pleadings were completed NCLT heard both the parties and after referring to the pleadings and arguments the findings were recorded in para 5 to 6.4. NCLT heard both the sides and dismissed the company petition of the appellant as mentioned earlier.
6. We have heard counsel for both sides. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was director since inception having 24% shareholding. It is argued that Respondent No.4, Parmod, son of Respondent No.2 was inducted as director although he held no share in the company. The counsel referred to compilation of documents filed by the appellant after filing of the appeal. The compilation is Diary No.8649. This was filed after it was realised at the time of arguments on 27.11.2018 that both the sides had not filed copies of document on which they wanted to rely and which were part of the NCLT record. We may mention here that although the appellant made various allegations, the appeal memo did not link the allegations to any annexures so as to make the appeal clear. As such the allegations made in the appeal are general leaving it for us to search the details from various documents which have been later filed by the appellant and also the respondent. Coming back to the Arguments, Diary No.8649 compilation of documents was filed by the appellant and the Learned counsel for the appellant referred Page 57 as the letter dated 1st April, 2014 sent by Respondent No.2, Managing Director, claiming the letter to be on behalf of the Board of Directors. The arguments is that there was no authority Company Appeal(AT) No.256 of 2017 7 given to Respondent No.2 to send such letter making allegations against the appellant. Reference is then made to (Page 58) Notice dated 7th April, 2014 calling EOGM on 29.4.2014 with Explanatory Statement (Page 59). Although the appellant claims that he did not get sufficient opportunity to respond to the notice proposing to remove him as Director, his letter dated 22.4.20124 (Page 60) shows that he responded with great details including invoking the provisions of the Companies Act making various allegations which are now found in the Company Petition and the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to Page 67 of his Compilation which was addressed to Respondent No.5, the accountant, demanding inspection of documents making allegations that he was avoiding on the pretext that he needs prior permission of Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.5 appears to have replied (Page 68) that he was only an employee and had nothing to do with the disputes of the Board of Directors and that he had met the Managing Director (Respondent No.2) and the MD has asked him to inform the appellant that he may take inspection of the bills as referred, at any time. Respondent No.5 added the statement that the appellant has taken inspection of records on various occasions and he was never obstructed.
7. Learned counsel for appellant referred to the convenience compilation filed by Respondents Diary No.8679 (Pages 155 to 161) whereby the appellant was given fresh notice and EOGM came to be fixed on 6.6.2014 and the appellant came to be removed as Director for reasons recorded in the Resolution of the company. Learned counsel referred to these documents to submit that when such actions were taken/initiated against the appellant he filed company petition. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to his Company Appeal(AT) No.256 of 2017 8 compilation (Page 355) and submitted that on 9.6.2005 there was an Agreement of Sale executed by Respondent No.2 who had jointly acquired land alongwith one Mrs Hema A Chainani through tripartite agreement from City Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd having Plot No.G-36 at Belapur, Navi Mumbai which building was constructed and shared with Mrs Hema A Chainani. It is stated that by the Agreement Respondent No.2 decided to transfer, sell his share in the building to the company for Rs.17,50,000/- and entered into the agreement. Referring to this document it has been argued that actually it was sale and such property came into possession of the company but later on Respondent No.2 himself executed another Deed of Cancellation of agreement as MD of the company and the agreement was cancelled. The document is at Page 361 (Diary No.8649). It is argued that the respondents committed such acts on their own without consent of the appellant. The argument is that the deed of cancellation shows that there was passing of consideration when the agreement was entered into and such consideration was then showed as returned in the Deed of Cancellation. Both the Documents are signed by Respondent No.2 alone in dual capacities. It is argued that after such cancellation of the agreement in favour of the company, Respondent No.2 started taking rent from the company for the use of the premises by the company. It is also argued that the respondents were part of certain partnerships which were operating from the premises of the company and for which the appellant had filed police complaint.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to his compilation (Page 218) where there is a purchase order from the letterhead of the company to one Company Appeal(AT) No.256 of 2017 9 Nirmal Agency asking for supply of various construction articles at the site of the company with the address shown as 144, Sector 21, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai. The argument is that at Kharghar the company did not have any site and this address was of the house of Respondent No.2 and this document shows articles being supplied at the site of house of Respondent No.2 and thus there was siphoning of funds of the company. Learned counsel referred to appeal Page 57 which is part of the copy of the company petition where the allegations were made in sub para (g) that more than Rs.15 lakhs were siphoned off by Respondent No.2 for addition and alteration work of the Bungalow at Kochi which was owned by wife of Respondent No.2. According to the counsel for the appellant, the respondent did not deny that amount were spent on addition and alteration work of Bungalow at Kochi. It has also been argued that the respondents gave loans of Rs.2410000/- to M/s Unibuild Engineers and even this is not denied. Thus according to the learned counsel for the appellant there was sufficient material against the respondents to have fresh audit conducted against the respondents and the company petition should have been allowed.
9. Against this the learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that respondents have filed copies of various documents as were filed in NCLT. It is argued that in NCLT the respondents had filed a convenience compilation also with index giving explanation to the various allegations and referring to the pages in the compilation. The copies of such convenience compilation has been filed before us with affidavit in Diary No.8679 and annexures as described in the convenience compilation. It would be appropriate to scan and paste the Explanation part of the convenience compilation which is as follows:
Company Appeal(AT) No.256 of 2017 10 Company Appeal(AT) No.256 of 2017 11 Company Appeal(AT) No.256 of 2017 12 Company Appeal(AT) No.256 of 2017 13 Company Appeal(AT) No.256 of 2017 14 Company Appeal(AT) No.256 of 2017 15 Company Appeal(AT) No.256 of 2017 16 Company Appeal(AT) No.256 of 2017 17 Company Appeal(AT) No.256 of 2017 18 Company Appeal(AT) No.256 of 2017 19 In the above chart on the extreme right by hand page numbers as before NCLAT have been added as in appeal, Convenience Compilation. Learned counsel for the respondents has made his submissions and arguments based on the explanations as given above. The particulars given as Event are defence and explanation of Respondents supported by Documents. According to the learned counsel for the Respondents after the explanation to the allegations as made by Appellant in NCLT, the list shows summary of the anti company activities of the petitioner-appellant which were pointed out to the Learned NCLT and cognisance of which was taken by the NCLT so as to reject the claims being made by the appellant.
10. We have heard counsel for both sides and perused the record. It has been argued by Learned Counsel for the appellant that the document dated 9th June, 2005 was actually a Sale Deed which was titled as Agreement to Sale and the properties concerned were of the Company but subsequently the Respondents executed Deed of Cancellation of Agreement dated 19th June, 2008 without Board Resolution and appellant was kept in the dark with regard to such Cancellation of Agreement. At the time of argument although the Learned Counsel for the appellant tried to say that there was a Sale Deed on 9th June, 2005, we had noticed that the contents were in the nature of Agreement of Sale. Even regarding consideration the contents mentioned say that the Builder agreed to sell and the purchasers agreed to purchase (para 3) at total construction (should be consideration) of Rs.17,50,000/-. As parties, this document had signatures only of the Respondent No.2 one in his individual capacity and second as Managing Director of the Company. The reverse document of Deed of Cancellation also has signatures only of the Company Appeal(AT) No.256 of 2017 20 Respondent No.2 in two capacities. This time, of course, it was mentioned that the purchaser had earlier paid Rs.17,50,000/- by way of full and final payment in the Agreement for Sale dated 9th June, 2005 which were now being returned as it is and the receipt was recorded for having received said refund of advance payment made to the purchaser. Ordinarily if the Company has received possession even under an Agreement, we would expect the Directors to protect the possession. However, here it would be necessary to refer to the facts of the matter to consider if we should interfere. Counsel for Respondents referred to his convenience Compilation Page 22 to argue that the Company was mainly having business from being contractor of MES and in May 2005 MES had written letter informing that the immovable property shown by the Company was personal property of one of the Directors and could not be taken as the property of the Company and so document showing the properties, assets and liabilities of the firm should be submitted. The defence of the respondents is that because of such requirement of MES, the property which was of the Respondent No.2 was shown as property of the Company by executing Agreement to Sale and subsequently the Company was able to purchase property at Dighode and so reverse document was executed. A copy of the document of purchase of property at Dighode has been pointed out by the Respondents at Page 30 of their Compilation. We are not entering into analysing the nature of Agreement to Sale and Deed of Cancellation any further as the Respondents have shown that in 2009 itself, after the Deed of Cancellation the Respondent Company had informed Chief Engineer, Navi Mumbai regarding replacement of immovable property, copy of the letter is at Page 37 of convenience compilation of respondents. This is dated 1st April, Company Appeal(AT) No.256 of 2017 21 2009. It enclosed new affidavit incorporating the particulars of movable and immovable property belonging to the Company. The affidavit dated 26th March, 2009 which is also signed by the appellant shows that the appellant and Respondent No.2 and 3 by this notarised affidavit stated details as to the movable and immovable properties of the company. One list is of movable properties. The other list is of immovable properties which now included only reference to the property at Dighode. We find substance in the argument of Learned Counsel for Respondents that these documents as well as Balance Sheet for period ending 31st March, 2012, copies of which have been filed at Page 38 to 42 with the convenience compilation and which also bear signatures of the appellant did not show the property of G-36, Belapur, Navi Mumbai as the property of the Company and the appellant was aware of it and true purpose why the Agreement to Sale and Cancellation Deed were executed. As in the affidavit of 26th March, 2009 itself the property G-36, Belapur, Navi Mumbai was not included and the appellant never raised objections till respondents initiated action against him, such stale claims made by the appellant in Company Petition filed on 15th May, 2014 may have to be ignored. Thus we reject the allegations made by the appellant with regard to transfer of registered office of the company; his grievance regarding substitution of the same with MES as well as the allegations regarding agreement to sale and the deed of cancellation. We will not look into such stale claim in the face of conduct of the appellant himself. The appellant earlier never had difficulty when such documents were executed and belated grievances made are rejected. There is no substance in the excuse that he was looking after projects only and did not know what was happening in the Company affairs. Company Appeal(AT) No.256 of 2017 22
11. It is the grievance of appellant that after Deed of Cancellation, respondent No.2 started taking rent for the premises of G-36, Belapur, Navi Mumbai from where the company was functioning. Learned counsel for the Respondents referred to this grievance as Allegation No.5 in the Convenience Compilation and referred to copies of documents filed at Page 59-62 and submitted that the records of the company in the shaper of Balance Sheet as on 31st March, 2012 which shoed the appellant also to be one of the signatories as Director did show room rent being paid to the Respondent No.2 and thus the appellant had knowledge of the affairs and did not raise disputes till 2014 when Respondents started taking action against the appellant. Considering the submissions and records pointed out by the Respondents, we discard the allegations made on this count by the appellant and will not interfere in the internal management of the Company.
12. The appellant has made allegation that from the property of the company at G-36 Belapur there were other partnership firms belonging to the respondents conducting business for which the stationery and staff of the company was being used. We have seen the Company Petition, it does not give any particulars in details regarding the portions of the building in G-36, Belapur which were in possession of the company. The Agreement to Sale which is on record, if that was to be considered it shows that there was a building with various floors and some parts of it were subject matter in the Agreement to Sale. In a situation where it appears from record that the building had various floors and portions, without Appellant clearly spelling out which portions, floors of the building were in possession of the company, it appears difficult to consider this allegation of the appellant. The Company Appeal(AT) No.256 of 2017 23 respondents in their compilation while dealing with the Explanation of Allegation No.6 in NCLT, on this count brought on record Service Tax, registrations of the four companies and added that the Respondent No.1 company was operating from 2nd floor of G-36, Belapur and the four partnerships referred were in other portions. It appears to us that the appellant failed to clearly bring on record the details to show that unconnected partnerships were operating from the premises in possession of the company. There have to be documents more than, service tax registration to show that other partnership firms were actually operating from premises of the company. Referring to merely "G-36" by the appellant cannot be said to be sufficient.
13. The other allegation of the appellant is that the Respondent No.2 had personal bungalow at Kharghar and for that bungalow material and labour at the cost of Respondent No.1 company was used. We have referred supra to a document at Page 218 of the Compilation filed by the Appellant, pointed out on this count by the Learned Counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to this allegation of the appellant as Allegation No.7(A) which was made before NCLT and regarding which explanation is given in the Convenience Compilation read with pleadings and documents. Learned counsel pointed out the pleadings of respondents in this regard submitted in NCLT (Convenience Compilation Page 84) and submitted that Respondent No.2 had not siphoned any money for the construction of his Bungalow at Plot No.144, Sector 21, Kharghar. According to the Respondents there was audit of the accounts of the company in 2011-12 and 2012-13 and no objections on this count were raised. Referring to the invoices being relied on by the appellant the defence is that in 2012 a Company by name Terex Noell, a US Company Appeal(AT) No.256 of 2017 24 based company, proposed respondent company for grant of distributorship and representative agreement. It is stated that negotiations took place in 2012 and 2013 and one of the condition put by the US based company was that the respondent company should have a godown and distributorship office somewhere near JLNP and upcoming Navi Mumbai airport. Respondent company was locating premises and the premises at Shop No.23, Plot No.28, Sector 4, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai was located which was approved by the US based company and a Memorandum of Understanding with respect to the said office at Kharghar was entered into by the respondent company with the owner for the purpose of renovating the same as per requisite conditions of the US based company. Respondents claim that for this purpose some expenses were incurred. The invoices pointed out have no connection with Respondent No.2. Respondents claim that Respondent No.2 has a bungalow at Kharghar and the argument is that some articles were stored at the premises of Respondent No.2 at Kharghar for such purpose. According to the counsel for Respondent the invoices shown are of hardly Rs.1 lakh. The plan of distributorship at JNLPT did not work out and the American Company instead gave the project to respondent company at Pipava. It is claimed that Respondent company got business of more than Rs.1 crore from the said American Company. Learned counsel pointed out to the email and other documents in this context which are referred with the Explanation of Allegation No.7(A) of the Convenience Compilation. It is argued that regarding the bungalow of Respondent No.2 at Kharghar it was already completed in 2013 and there is also occupation certificate. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents took us through the documents and pleadings in this regard with the Explanation of Allegation Company Appeal(AT) No.256 of 2017 25 No.7 (A) referred in the compilation of the respondents which was filed before NCLT.
14. Even regarding Allegation of Company resources being used for renovation of property at Kochi belonging to Ms Anita Pillai, wife of Respondent No.2, the Respondents have shown documents with the Explanation of Allegation 7(B) which indicate that the company was using that premises for use of the company. It appears that part of the property was converted into office of the company for holding meetings. The address of the bungalow was recorded in Vat Registration form and MES authorities also made correspondence on that address.
15. Then there is allegation of the appellant that the Respondent Company which had itself taken loans from the Banks gave loan of Rs.24 lakhs to Uni Build Engineers which was related company of the Respondent No.2. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents referred to the documents in this connection given with Explanation of Allegation No.8 in NCLT, to demonstrate that if the loan was given, it was returned with interest within three weeks. This also happened before the Company Petition was filed. It would not be appropriate for us to given undue weightage to this instance. We do not find substance in the various allegations made by the Appellant to be such so as to treat the same as oppression or mismanagement.
16. Record shows that the Respondents initiated action against the appellant to remove him as Director. The respondents have given various instances of misconduct to claim that the appellant indulged in anti-company activities. When the appellant stood on technicalities regarding time the respondents appear to have sent fresh notice dated 3.5.2014 and EOGM came Company Appeal(AT) No.256 of 2017 26 to be held on 6.6.2014. Before this the appellant had filed the Company Petition on 15.5.2014. The NCLT looked into this aspect and did not find fault with the removal of the appellant from the post of Director. We do not find any reason to disagree with the NCLT. In fact, we have gone through the other finding also which have been recorded by the NCLT with regard to the various allegations made by the appellant and those allegations did not find favour with the NCLT. We agree with the NCLT regarding its findings regarding the various allegations. In fact, it is interesting to see that the appellant even pushed through a Criminal Complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Belapur in Regular Criminal Case No.766/2014 making some allegations as in this Company Petition and the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class considered the matter under Section 403, 406, 420, 506(2) read with Section 120(b) of the IPC and after analysing evidence of the various witnesses found the Respondent No.2 to 5 not guilty. Reference may be made to para 26 of that judgement where referring to the witnesses, the Magistrate recorded that none of the employees deposed that they were working for those other companies. Clearly, the allegation of misuse of staff for other partnerships did not find favour with the JMFC. Copy of the judgement has been filed with Diary No.7511.
17. For the above reasons, we do not find any substance in this appeal so as to interfere with the impugned judgement and order passed by the NCLT. Company Appeal(AT) No.256 of 2017 27
18. The appeal is rejected. The appellant shall pay each of the five respondents cost of this appeal which shall be Rs.50,000/- each (Total Rs.2,50,000/-).
(Justice A.I.S.Cheema) Member (Judicial) (Mr. Balvinder Singh) Member (Technical) New Delhi Bm Company Appeal(AT) No.256 of 2017