NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson, Balvinder Singh, Member (Technical)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Rachakonda Siva Kumar - Appellant
Vs.
Zetatek Engineering Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents
Company Appeal (AT) No. 141 of 2017
Decided On : 19-05-2017
ORDER :
This Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against the order dated 1st March, 2017 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") in Company Petition No. 58 of 2015 (TP No. 80/HDB/2016), whereby Ld. Tribunal has passed the following orders:
(i) We hereby appoint Shri T. Hanumantha Reddy, Advocate & Senior Panel Counsel for Central Govt. & Railway Panel Advocate in CAT/HYD, H.No. 6-1-72, Sri Maha Laxmi Meadows, A-1501, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad-4, as Chairperson to conduct Board Meetings and Annual General Meetings for the year 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 of Zetatek Engineering Systems Private Limited.
(ii) We hereby appoint Seshachalan & Co., Chartered Accountants, "Wall Street Plaza", 1-11-256, ICICI Building, St. No.], Begumpet, Hyderabad-16, (Contact Person: Partner Mr. K. Gout ham, Mobile No. 9885773 752) as Auditor in the present case and his fee will be decided in consultation with the Chairperson. iii) The Learned Chairperson is directed to fix dates and venues suitable, after discussing the issue with the petitioner and the Respondent No.2 & 3 and give advance notices to all the concerned parties;
(iv) The petitioner as well as the Respondent No. 2 and 3 are directed to extend full co-operation to the Learned Chairperson and Auditor to discharge their duties;
(v) The learned Chairperson is also directed to take all relevant records and make available those records to the Respondent No.2 & 3
(vi) The Lear ned Chairperson's fee is fixed at for Rs.25,000/- for Board Meetings and Rs.50,000/- to Annual/Extra Ordinary General Meetings which is to be borne by Respondent No.1 Company apart from other expenses;
(vii) We direct the Auditor to take up auditing of all the relevant records.
(viii) We direct the Petitioner and the Respondents to make available all the records as required by the s aid Auditor as and when called for.
(ix) The Petitioner as well Respondents are entitled to have an access to records obtained by the auditor is directed to furnish the copies as requested by the parties if the copies are few in pages. If they are in voluminous the parties are entitled to inspect those documents.
(x) The Learned Chairperson and Auditor are directed to complete the above exercise within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt copy of this order;
(xi) Both the Chairperson and Auditor are entitled to take any professional service/ assistance required by them depending on the nature of their assignment; and they have to minute/ record all the proceedings and furnish copies to both the parties;
(xii) Both the Learned Chairperson and Auditor should make all efforts to settle the issue amicably;
(xiii) The respondents are also directed to co-operate with the newly appointed Auditor, if any services are required by the C.A.
(xiv) The Registry of NCLT is directed to forward a copy of this Order to the Learned Chairperson and Auditor."
2. The brief facts of the case is that the Appellant preferred an application under section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Sections 81, 111, 397, 398, 399, 402, 403 read with Schedule XI of the Companies Act, 1956, to declare 'the fake Board Resolutions uploaded with the Form No.MGT-14 transferring 500 shares by the 2nd Respondent to 3rd Respondent' as void and illegal and to declare the allotment of 90,000 shares solely to the 2d Respondent at the purported Board meeting dated 3rd September, 2014 as void and illegal. Prayer was also made to convene and conduct the AGM for the year ending 3 1.03.2014 immediately for approval of the annual accounts at the Board Meeting held on 03.09.2014.
3. The grievance of the Appellant is that the Ld. Tribunal without deciding the
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.