Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)Section 242 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Section 421 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Section 420 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 2013
Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp vs Union Of India Through Ministry Of ... on 4 March, 2020
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.
1