SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 94

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai)
HEMANT GUPTA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. – Appellants
Versus
Antrix Corporation Ltd. & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.5766 of 2021 With Civil Appeal No.5906 of 2021
Decided on : 17-01-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Adv. Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, AOR Mr. Pawan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Priyanka M.P., Adv. Mr. Chaitanya Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Ambar Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Haaris Fazili, Adv. Mr. Kunal Dutt, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. N. Venkataraman, ASG Mr. V. Chandrashekara Bharathi, Adv. Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Arvind Ray, Adv. Mr. Karan Gupta, Adv. Ms. Vansha Sethi Suneja, Adv. Mr. Chinmoy Roy, Adv. for M/s. Khaitan & Co. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

Fraud can be a continuing cause for winding up a company under Section 271(c) of the Companies Act, 2013, allowing the Tribunal to validate the winding process independent of traditional limitations.

Headnote:(A) Companies Act, 2013 - Section 271(c) - Winding up of a company - Allegation of fraud - Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. was wound up on grounds of fraudulent conduct and formation for unlawful purpose, established through evidence of ongoing fraudulent activities and dubious corporate actions. (Paras 12.6-12.8)

(B) Limitation - Limitation Act applicable to winding up proceedings - The argument of limitation was rejected since fraud constituted a continuing process. (Paras 8.2-8.3)

(C) Estoppel - The appellant was estopped from denying fraud given the nature of management and shareholder conduct, despite previous intentions stated in termination notices. (Paras 9.1-9.14)

(D) Cross-examination - NCLT's refusal to permit cross-examination not fatal since existence of fraud established based on available documentation without oral evidence. (Paras 10.1-10.12) (E) Locus Standi - Shareholders denied participation in the winding up process but their interests represented through legal counsel already present before the Tribunal. (Paras 11.1-11.10)

Findings of Court:
The winding-up order was justified based on fraud and improper conduct, with no grounds warranting interference.

Issues: Main questions included the existence of fraud, procedural legitimacy concerning advertisement and limitation, shareholder involvement, and cross-examination rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court opined that ongoing fraudulent activities justified the winding-up of Devas, illustrating that limitations do not impede actions based on fraudulent behavior.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

What is the scope of fraud as a ground for winding up a company under Section 271(c) of the Companies Act, 2013?

What is the effect and necessity of advertisement before winding up under Section 271(c) and the related Rules?

How to determine whether limitation applies to winding up petitions based on fraud, and how courts should treat continuing fraud?


JUDGMENT :

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

1. Challenging an order of winding up passed by the National Company Law Tribunal under Section 271 (c) of the COMPANIES ACT , 2013 (for short the 2013 Act), which was confirmed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal on appeals, the company in liquidation, namely, Devas Multimedia Private Limited, through its ex-Director has come up with an appeal in Civil Appeal No.5766 of 2021 and one of the shareholders of the company in liquidation, namely, Devas Employees Mauritius Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as DEMPL) has come up with another appeal in CA No.5906 of 2021.

2. We have heard Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel appearing for the company in liquidation, Shri Arvind P. Datar, learned senior counsel appearing for the shareholder-appellant, Shri N. Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for Respondent No. 1 herein, which is the company which moved the Tribunal for winding up the company in liquidation and Shri Balbir Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India.

3. Brief Background

3.1 The first respondent in these appeals, namely, Antrix Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as Antrix), incorporated on 28.09.1992 under the COMPANIES ACT , 1956, is the commercial arm of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO for short) which is wholly owned by the Government of India and coming under the administrative control of the Department of Space.

3.2 On 28.07.2003, Antrix entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Forge Advisors, LLC, a Virginia Corporation. The intent, as spelt out in the MOU, was to make both parties become “strong and vital partners in evaluating and implementing major new satellite applications across diverse sectors including agriculture, education, media and telecommunications”. Apart from other things, the MOU contemplated Forge Advisors to provide a broad array of advisory services that included near-term tactical projects in the areas of sales, marketing, business development, strategic partnership negotiations and other related business areas and long term projects in the areas of corporate strategy, market opportunity assessment, business case development for new services, launch of new application services etc.

3.3 On 22.03.2004, Forge Advisors made a presentation proposing an Indian joint venture, to launch what came to be known as “DEVAS” (Digitally Enhanced Video and Audio Services). It was projected in the said proposal that DEVAS platform will be capable of delivering multimedia and information services via satellite to mobile devices tailored to the needs of various market segments such as(i) consumer segment,comprising of entertainment and information services to digital multimedia consoles in cars and vehicles;(ii) commercial segment,comprising of high value information services to Commercial Information Devices in commercial transport vehicles; and(iii) social segment,comprising of Developmental Information Services to Rural Information kiosks in underserved areas.

3.4 The presentation dated 22.03.2004 was followed by a proposal dated 15.04.2004. The proposal was to form “a strategic partnership to launch DEVAS, a new service that delivers video, multimedia and information services via satellite to mobile receivers in vehicles and mobile phones across India”. The proposal dated 15.04.2004 indicated that DEVAS was conceived as a new National Service, expected to be launched by the end of 2006, that would deliver video, multimedia and information services via satellite to mobile receivers in vehicles and mobile phones across India1[Paragraph 1 of the Executive Summary of the Proposal dated 15.04.2004]. The proposal contemplated the formation of a joint venture and an obligation on the part of ISRO and Antrix to invest in one operational SB and satellite with a ground spac

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top