Ex-employee's irrelevant mismanagement petition 'abuse of law', imposes heavy costs
CLB dismisses with costs petition filed u/s 237(b), 397, 398 & 408 of Companies Act, 1956 by ex-senior manager ('petitioner') against Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.'s ('Neyveli') Chairman & key management personnel, alleging manipulation of company's balance sheets; CLB terms petition as 'sheer abuse of process of law', as petitioner held merely 200 shares of Neyveli and thereby ineligible u/s 399 to file oppression / mismanagement petition; Further observes that petitioner has made futile exercise by impleading retired employees, who have nothing to do with company affairs, amounting to misjoinder of parties; Observes that the petitioner has made irrelevant averments, sought irrelevant reliefs which CLB cannot even prima facie look into those allegation, states that "it is a fit case to impose heavy cost on petitioner for wasting valuable time of this Bench":Chennai CLB
Order was passed by Kanthi Narahari, Judicial Member, Company law Board, Chennai Bench.
Dr. K V Sreenivisan argued for petitioner, while respondents were represented by Mr. G. Allwin Chelliah & Mr Edward James.
| ||||||
© Incisive Business Media (IP) Ltd 2015 , Published by Incisive Business Media Ltd, Haymarket House, 28-29 Haymarket, London SW1Y 4RX, are companies registered in England and Wales with company registration numbers 9177174 & 9178013.
This email is intended for djshah1944@yahoo.com. If you do not wish to receive this email please:
| Accountancy Age | LIVE |
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
© Incisive Business Media (IP) Limited 2015, Published by Incisive Business Media Limited, Haymarket House, 28-29 Haymarket, London SW1Y 4RX, are companies registered in England and Wales with company registration numbers 9177174 & 9178013.
This email is intended for djshah1944@yahoo.com.
Dear All,
The CBEC has issued Notification for maintenance of electronic records and issuing invoices with Digital Signature.
Rule 10
The assessee can now maintain the records on daily basis in respect of goods produced or manufactured, opening balance, quantity removed etc. In the electronic format and can also be preserved in electronic format provided every page of the records maintained has digital signature.
Rule 11(8)
Invoice issued under this rule may be authenticated by means of digital signature provided the duplicate copy of the invoice meant for transporter is digitally signed and a hard copy of such transporter copy of the invoice duly self attested by the manufacturer is used for transport of goods.
Regards,
--
"No candle loses its light while lighting another candle. So never stop sharing and helping others because it makes your life more meaningful"
Best Wishes
CA. V.M.V.SUBBA RAO
Chartered Accountant
Door No.24-2-1885,
I Floor, Flat No.5,
Siddivinayaka Residency, I Cross,
Central Avenue, MSR Nagar,
Magunta Layout,
Nellore-524 003
Andhra Pradesh
India
Mobile:+91 - 0 9390221100
+91 - 0 9440278412
e-Mail: vmvsr@rediffmail.com
vmvsr@yahoo.co.uk
Sets aside CLB order to rectify members' register, absent natural justice principles compliance
HC allows appeal u/s 10F of Companies Act, 1956, sets aside CLB order passed u/s 111 that directed the company to rectify the register of members as CLB did not follow natural justice principles; Observes that CLB has proceeded to adjudicate the matter on merits without recording whether there is service of notice 'effected' on the respondent; Pursues the CLB's order sheet, observes that petitioner was under obligation to send notice to respondent and file proof of service with CLB, however notes that petitioner has issued the notice and only the 'receipt' (and not 'proof of service') for having forwarded the notice was filed with CLB; Refers Regulation 21 (relating to service of notice and process issued by Bench) and Regulation 26 (relating to procedure to be followed where any party does not appear) of the CLB Regulations, observes that "until and unless the CLB records a finding that there has been service of notice on respondent, it cannot be presumed that there has been effective service of notice"; Remits the matter back to CLB for adjudication on merits afresh:Karnataka HC
Advocate CK Nandakumar represented the Appelant and Advocates CM Poonacha, A Murali, Saji P John, BS Aravind Babu represented the Respondents
Ruling was delivered by Honourable Justice Vineet Saran & Justice Aravind Kumar.
Lays down law on impleading Court / Tribunal as 'party' while deciding writs
SC rules on impleading of Court or Tribunal as a party in writ petitions as well as on maintainability of letters patent appeal ('LPA') before Division Bench under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India; Notes Gujarat HC Special Bench's view that unless a Court or Tribunal is made a party, proceeding is not maintainable, observes, "The suggestion that non-existence of a tribunal might operate as a bar to issue such directions is not correct as the true scope of certiorari is that it merely demolishes the offending order and hence, the presence of the offender before the Court, though proper is not necessary for the exercise of the jurisdiction or to render its determination effective." ; However, clarifies that when a Tribunal or Authority is required to defend its own order, it is to be made a party failing which proceeding before HC would be regarded as not maintainable; Further, states that neither Court nor Presiding Officer defends the order before superior Court, thus HC in exercise of its writ / revisional jurisdiction, can call for records without impleading the Court or Officer as a party; Similarly notes that there are many Tribunals "which only adjudicate and they have nothing to do with the lis… in that case such tribunals need not be arrayed as parties" and in this regard cites examples of CESTAT, ITAT & Sales Tax Tribunal; SC also rules that Tribunal, being or not being a party in a writ petition, is not determinative of the maintainability of LPA; On exercise of jurisdiction by HC Division Bench under LPA, SC clarifies that there is no straight jacket formula, it would depend upon the pleadings in writ petition, nature and character of the order passed by the learned Single Judge & the type of directions issued; Concludes that order passed by Civil Court is only amenable to scrutiny by HC in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227, which is distinct from 'writ' jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution, and as held by 3-Judge Bench in Radhey Shyam ruling, no writ can be issued against order passed by Civil Court and therefore, no LPA maintainable; Notes, "while in a 'certiorari' under Article 226 the High Court can only annul the decision of the Tribunal, it can, under Article 227, do that, and also issue further directions in the matter."; Cites series of SC rulings, including those in Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque & Ors., T.C. Basappa vs. T. Nagappa & Anr., and Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia; In view of principles laid down herein, remands matter to Division Bench of HC for hearing:SC
The ruling was delivered by SC Division bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel.
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment