National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
Fidaali Moiz Mithiborwala & Anr vs M/S Aceros Fortune Industries Pvt. Ltd. ... on 6 April, 2017
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Company Appeal (AT) No. 83 of 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:
Fidaali Moiz Mithiborwala & Anr «. Appellant {5}
¥e.
M/s. Aceras Fortune Industrive Pvt. Limited & Anr
. Respondents
Along with Company Appeal (AT) No. 84
of 2017 Fidaali Mois Mithiborwala & Anr "» Appellant(s M/ $. Majolica Impex Pvt. 1 ted & Ors . Respondents : / With Company Appeal (AT) 'No. 85 of 2017 Fidaali Moiz Mithiborwata & Anr . w Appellant {s} ¥s.
M/s. Majolica Properties (India) | . Limited & Anr Respondents With Company Appeal (AT) No. 86 of 2017 Fidaali Moiz Mithiborwala & Anr « Appellant {s} Va.
M/s. Angel Exim Pvt. Limited & Ors » Respondents and Company Appeal (AT) No. 87 of 2017 Fidaali Moiz Mithiborwala & Anr w. Appelant {sg} Ves.
M/s. STMPL Enterprises Pvt. Limited & Ors Respondents Present: For Appellant:. Ms Tasneem Ahmedi, Mr Sujecet Gupta, Ms Deepti Bhargava and Mr Rahul Singh, Advocates.
GQRDER 6.4. 2017 - The Appellants have challenged similar order both dated 6 February 2017 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai {hereinafter referred iG as Tribunel) in different Company Applications which was preferred by Appellants for amendment of pleading of corresponding Company Petitions. By three orders dated 6 February 2017, the Tribunal partly alkewed the amendment and rejected the rest. [In rest of the bnipmened arders dated 6% February, 2017, the Tribunal rejecter a the petilions seoking simencdment, oo _ While rejecting the 5 < apie ication, the Tri bunal motioned the Our ' Ut Builders "{2H08} 10 ab served as SCC 84, wherein aye Hon'ble Ay folios:
which caus delay int disposal oF the cases. The application for amendment lead to further delay in disposal of the cases.
From the record, we find that the Company Petitions No. 64 to 68 of 2013 are pending for about two years. Earlier, against comunon order dated 3 August 2018, the Appellant {s} moved before this Appellate Tribunal in Conypany Application (AT) No. 12 ef 2616. This Tribunal vide order dated 19% Octoher, 2016 disposed of the appeal with following observation: .
* Para *.....Purther, Section 422 of the Companies Aci, 2013 deals udth expeditious disposnul of petitions by Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal. As per the new law, every application or petition presented before the Tribunal and every appeal fled before the Appellate Tribunal shall he dealt with and disposed of by U as expeditiously as possible and every endeavor shull he made by the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal, as the suse ray be, for the dispusal of such application or petition or appeal within 3 months from the date of its preseriation before the Tribunal or the Aling ef the appeal hefore the Appellate Tribunal.
8. Under sub-section (2) of Section 422, where ary application or petition or appeal is not disposed of unthin the period specified in sub-section {2}, the Tribunal or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal, shall record ithe reasons for not dispasing of the application ar.
petition or the appeal, as fhe euse may be, unthin the period so specified; and the President or the Chairperson, as the case may be, mai after faking inte weoourlt the reasons so recorder, extend the period referred fo im sub-section ak } bt ay i ar € hair person ia '0 place the eas for its expeditious disposal.
10. Now more than 3 months have passed, there 1s poring on _Jecord 10 Suge gest that sud- Section {3} oF 3.82018 passed in CP. No. 64 'to 68 3 of O18 wd reput the matter fo the Tribunal, (Mumbai Be | Mumbai for final disposal of oo CPs, dirext the Bench to act in terms of sub-section ft} oF Section 43 yt ih. Inthe meantime, the resporuients are directed not to sell any arumovable property of the respondent cormprriies All tre final disposai of all the CPs.
12. Parties are also directed to conperate with the Tribunal for early disposal of the CPs and unll net ask for unnecessary adjaurnment of the case. Ifthe parties do nat cooperate, the Tribunal may proceed usth the matter ex-parte and pass final judgment. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no onder as to cost.
lt appears that after order dated 19% Octaber 2016 the Appellants preferred the amendment petitions which were heard arul dismissed by Tribunal by orders all dated 6 February, 20177.
In wew of the fact that this Appellate Tribunal had directed the Tribunal to dispose af the Company Petition immedistely and the subsequent amendment petitions were filed by the Appellant (s} without leave of the Tribunal ar this Appellate Tribunal, and as the amendment petitions goes against the spirit of order dated 19% October 2016, passed by this Appellate Tribunal, we are of the view that the Tribunal rightly rejected the amendment petuigoens.
For the reasons aforesaid, we are nat inclmed te interfere with the impugned order. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on the next date and conclude their hearing. The parties may rely on their pleading and other documents placed on record(s} by parties. The Tribunal will conclude the hearing and pass final order by Aalst May, | SD /~-
nopadhaya) QU POrso4ni . Sd/-
Mr. Balvinder Singh} Member (Technical ay