citedby: 126954590

Wavell Investments Private Limited vs Il And Fs Financial Services Limited ... on 29 October, 2020

In the case of N. Sampath Ganesh Vs. Union of India & Ors, the auditors of IL & FS, had challenged the directions and the prosecution against them under section 212(14) of the Companies Act 2013. One of the question before the Division Bench was whether the SFIO Report was an interim report. This question arose before the Division Bench in the context of the Petitioners therein that is the R. S. Karve 14/20 WPL-2572-20_6.doc auditors. Division Bench observed report pertaining to IL & FS only and the transaction with third parties had not been looked into. It also observed that this report is not a standalone and further investigation into affairs would affect findings in the report. Therefore merely based on the observations rendered in the context of petitioners before the Division Bench, it cannot be held there is nothing to be investigated further. There is no categorical finding by the Division Bench that SFIO report regarding the larger fraud was final. The observations indicate to the contrary that various aspects are yet to be looked into.

Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - N M Jamdar - Full Document

Pradeep Puri vs Union Of India on 30 August, 2024

27. It is the contention of the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant that the NCLT had erroneously denied discharge on ground that the Appellant had made withdrawal of lookout circular as the only basis of his discharge. Assailing the impugned order, it is contended by the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant that there were several other substantive grounds which justified the deletion of the Appellant as party Respondent No.316 in CP3638 of 2018 which the NCLT did not take due cognisance of. These grounds include the absence of any findings Comp. App. (AT) Nos. 102 & 182 of 2024 18 of 23 in SFIO Final Report against the Appellant besides no chargesheet having been framed or criminal proceedings initiated against him. Withdrawal of lookout circular was only one other additional demonstrable proof that the Appellant was no longer a material or relevant party for impleadment. Attention was also adverted to decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neera Saggi Vs UOI 2021 SCC Online SC 239 wherein it was held that there should be due application of mind while impleading Independent Directors in IL&FS proceedings before the NCLT. Following this judgement, the NCLT had discharged and deleted two erstwhile Independent Directors who were wrongly impleaded as Respondents in CP No. 3638 of 2018. In the present case too for the aforesaid reasons, it was asserted that the name of the Appellant ought to be deleted from the list of party Respondent and restraint on the assets be lifted.

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Pradeep Puri vs Union Of India Through Regional ... on 30 August, 2024

27. It is the contention of the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant that the NCLT had erroneously denied discharge on ground that the Appellant had made withdrawal of lookout circular as the only basis of his discharge. Assailing the impugned order, it is contended by the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant that there were several other substantive grounds which justified the deletion of the Appellant as party Respondent No.316 in CP3638 of 2018 which the NCLT did not take due cognisance of. These grounds include the absence of any findings Comp. App. (AT) Nos. 102 & 182 of 2024 18 of 23 in SFIO Final Report against the Appellant besides no chargesheet having been framed or criminal proceedings initiated against him. Withdrawal of lookout circular was only one other additional demonstrable proof that the Appellant was no longer a material or relevant party for impleadment. Attention was also adverted to decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neera Saggi Vs UOI 2021 SCC Online SC 239 wherein it was held that there should be due application of mind while impleading Independent Directors in IL&FS proceedings before the NCLT. Following this judgement, the NCLT had discharged and deleted two erstwhile Independent Directors who were wrongly impleaded as Respondents in CP No. 3638 of 2018. In the present case too for the aforesaid reasons, it was asserted that the name of the Appellant ought to be deleted from the list of party Respondent and restraint on the assets be lifted.

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Harsh Singh vs Union Of India on 16 June, 2025

In order to buttress his submission, Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also drawn attention of this bench towards Sub-section 12 of Page | 1 Section 149 of the Companies Act, 2013 as well as to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neera Saggi vs. Union of India reported in (2023) 16 SCC 453 and V. Selvaraj vs. Reserve Bank of India reported in (2019) SCC OnLine Mad 38930. Reference has also been given of the Circular dated 02.03.2020 issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs in order to show that it was not permissible to the Tribunal to have passed such harsh directions without providing opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, more so, when the Appellant is a Practising Advocate.

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Uday Ved vs Union Of India on 12 November, 2025

3. The Appeal was filed by the Appellant and the certain other individuals challenging the orders dated 18.07.2019, Appellant has filed Company Appeal No. 215/2019 Uday Ved Vs. Union of India. All the appeals including the appeal of the Appellant came to be heard and dismissed by this Tribunal vide judgment dated 04.03.2020. Appeals were filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the said order. Appeal was filed by the Appellant, Civil Appeal No. 3014/2020 which appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 05.04.2021. After dismissal of the appeal on 05.04.2021 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Appellant filed the CA No. 121/2022 praying for recall/review of the judgment order dated 18.07.2019 with other reliefs which has been dismissed by the NCLT.

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Uday Ved vs Union Of India on 12 March, 2021

Civil Appeal No 3014 of 2020 1 Mr K V Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the order passed by this Court on 15 February 2021 in Civil Appeal No 2841/2020 [Neera Saggi v Union of India] and Civil Appeal No 3531/2020 [Renu Challu v Union of India] should also govern the facts of this case and an order of remand may be accordingly warranted to the National Company Law Tribunal.

Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search