NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial), S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson
IN THE MATTER OF:
Union of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs - Appellant
Vs.
Gitanjali Gems Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents
Company Appeal (AT) No. 103, 119, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133 of 2018
Decided On : 12-07-2018
JUDGMENT :
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
In all these appeals as common question of law is involved and common orders are under challenge, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The Union of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, filed an application under Sections 221, 222, 241, 242, 246 read with Section 339 of the Companies Act, 2013, being Company Petition No. 277 of 2018 against ‘Geetanjali Gems Ltd. & Ors.’, including the Companies and partnership firms and individual Directors and all employees on the ground that the affairs of the 1st Respondent Company (‘Geetanjali Gems Ltd.’), its group companies and LLPs have been/being conducted prejudicial to the public interest and on the ground that the Union of India, being custodian of the subjects of the country, sought the interim reliefs as follows:
(a) That the Petitioner be permitted to serve the Respondents through post, publication in newspapers, email, WhatsApp messaging, wherever required, in order to ensure due service of notice to all Respondents, present in India or overseas.
(b) That the Respondents be directed to disclose their moveable and immovable properties/assets, including bank accounts, owned by them in India or anywhere in the world.
(c) That the Respondents be restrained from mortgaging or creating charge or lien or third-party interest or in any way alienating, the movable or immovable properties owned by them and further, direct attachment of the all said properties and hand them over to the Petitioner. Petitioner be allowed to execute such orders through the Indian Missions, stationed overseas, for the immoveable and moveable properties in existence abroad.
(d) That the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), National Stock Exchange (NSE) and Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) be directed to restrain the trading of securities of Respondent No.1.
(e) That the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 22 and 23 be restrained from mortgaging or creating charge or lien or third-party interest or in any way alienating the securities issued by the said Respondents.
(f) That Central Depository Services Ltd. (CDSL) and National Securities Depository Ltd. (NSDL) be directed that securities owned/held by the respondents in any company be freezed and details thereof be shared with the Petitioner.
(g) That the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) may be directed to disclose information about all assets of the Respondents, in their knowledge or possession, for the purpose of attachment and restraint on alienation of such assets.
(h) That the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Indian Banks Association (IBA) be directed to facilitate disclosure of the details of bank accounts, lockers owned by the Respondents and attach the same on behalf of the Petitioner.
(i) That the State Governments and Administrators or Union Territories be directed to identify and disclose all details of immoveable properties owned/held by the Respondents.
(j) That the Petitioner be permitted to take possession, after due inventory, of all moveable and immoveable properties of the Respondents that have been attached as per the orders of this Hon’ble Tribunal, though Official Liquidators.
(k) The Petitioner seeks the leave of the Hon’ble Tribunal to enlarge the scope of the relief’s sought and prayers made in this petition by filing any other documents or applications in view of the extraordinary nature of the circumstances pertaining to the present petition.
(l) That the Petitioner may be permitted to file copies of the interim and/or final investigation reports of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), as and when the same are submitted by the concerned inspectors to the Central Government, in order to supplement/enlarge/amend/modify the present petition, based on the findings of the interim/final report, including addition
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.