Withdrawal of a petition without permission to file afresh bars institution of subsequent proceedings on the same subject matter.

ORDER

1. This is the application filed under Section 169 (4) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 filed by the Petitioner, Mr. Bharat Dinesh seeking following reliefs:

a) Set aside the impugned resolution by circulation dated 30.11.2022;

b)Set aside the impugned email dated 27.03.2023;

c) To reinstate Applicant on the CoA of the Respondent Company;

d) To declare the subsequent COA meetings/proceedings as null and void.

e) Pass any such order that this Hon'ble Tribunal may, in the interest of justice may deem necessary for bringing an end to the arbitrary and motivated acts of Respondents against Applicant.

2. Ld. Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner has made the following submissions in support of present petition:

a. The Petitioner was elected as a member of the Committee of Administration (CoA) of the Export Council of India (Respondent No. 1), a company duly incorporated under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, on 30.09.2021 during the 35th Annual General Meeting. The CoA exercises all powers vested in the Board of Directors of a company. The CoA consists of elected members who are chosen by the members of the Council to perform the duties and functions enshrined in the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Election Rules.

b. Article 23 of the Articles of Association of Respondent No. 1 further confirms that the members of the CoA are, in reality, the Directors of the company and shall retire by rotation in terms of Section 255 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Petitioner has been seriously prejudiced by the actions of Respondent No. 1 and the other Respondents, acting jointly and severally with an oblique and ulterior motive, to remove the Petitioner from the CoA without following the procedure established by law.

c. On 30.11.2022, the Petitioner was removed from the official WhatsApp group of the CoA of Respondent No. 1. Additionally, an email was circulated by Respondent No. 1 among the other members of the CoA proposing the removal of the Petitioner as the Authorized Representative of M/s Mir Handicraft Pvt. Ltd. in the meetings of Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 3 (Vice Chairman) issued a publication in a Moradabad newspaper on 01.12.2022, stating that the Petitioner had been removed as a member of the CoA due to disciplinary action d. The Petitioner sought an explanation for the aforesaid removal vide emails dated 02.12.2022 and 06.12.2022. Aggrieved by the situation, the Petitioner filed Company Petition No. 228/169/ND/2022 before this Tribunal. However, the said petition was withdrawn by the Petitioner upon assurances from the Respondents that he would continue to remain a member of the CoA.

e. The Petitioner did not receive any notice of the CoA meeting scheduled for 28.03.2023. Vide email dated 23.03.2023, the Petitioner sought clarification regarding the non-receipt of the meeting notice. Respondent No. 1, vide its letter dated 23.03.2023, accepted the revocation of the Petitioner's status as Authorized Representative in the CoA. M/s Mir Handicrafts Pvt. Ltd., vide its letter dated 24.03.2023, informed the Petitioner that with effect from 25.11.2022, he had ceased to be the Authorized Representative of the company. Vide email dated 27.03.2023, Respondent No. 3 informed the Petitioner that he had ceased to be a member of the CoA.

f. The Petitioner has been removed from the CoA without complying with the conditions prescribed under Section 169 of the Companies Act, 2013 . The removal as a member of the CoA has also been effected without adhering to the conditions s