The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) set aside all the unsavory observations/comments made by the Amaravati Bench of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
Facts of the case:-
Mr. P. B. A. Srinivasan, Counsel for the Appellants, Chalasani Udaya Sankar, Ms. Sripathi Sreevana Reddy, Ms. Yalamanchilli Manjusha, Mr. MantenaNarasa Raju submitted that the ‘Tribunal’ should have taken into account the fact that the Arguing Learned Counsel is above 50 years and is already going to medical treatment. In fact, the ‘Tribunal’ should have been ‘accommodative’ instead of making skewed remarks in unparliamentary language against the ‘Appellants’ and instructing them to make an alternate arrangement.
Interpretation of law:-
Mr. P. B. A. Srinivasan contended that the ‘Tribunal’ was not correct in passing the ‘Impugned Order’ and in fact, had applied all possible ‘assumptions’ and unparliamentary language against the ‘Appellants’ ignoring the necessities and consideration of the matter at hand. It is represented on behalf of the ‘Appellants’ that the ‘Tribunal’ had ignored the conduct of the ‘Respondents’ who were filing a number of ‘interlocutory Applications’ since the case was filed, but had not made attempt to file counter to the main Petition till March 2021 and put all the blame on the ‘Appellants’.
The ‘Appellants’ pointed out that the conduct of the ‘Tribunal’ in directing the ‘Appellants’ to complete the ‘Arguments’ and instruct them to make alternate arrangements in case the arguing Learned Counsel is ‘unwell’ is ‘inappropriate and unacceptable. counsel for the ‘Appellants’ contended that the language employed in the ‘Impugned Order’ of the ‘Tribunal’ is not only ‘harsh’ but also ‘unparliamentary’ and full of prejudices against the ‘Appellants’. Also, that the ‘Tribunal’ was not correct in ignoring the ‘COVID’ situation which prevailed in the National Capital Delhi. The Counsel for the ‘Appellants’ submitted that since the ‘Impugned Order’ causes prejudice to the ‘Appellants’, the same needs to be set aside in the interest of justice.
The Coram of Justice Venugopal M and V. P. Singh said, the unsavory observations/comments made by the ‘Tribunal’. It is also a fact that right from the beginning ever since this Judicial Member had taken over Amaravati Bench, on one pretext of the other, Petitioners have been trying to drag the matter and have been successfully dragged the matter for over 10 months………. and ending with It is important that having spent several Judicial Hours on this case, granting 3 weeks’ time is certainly unjustifiable are not warranted and besides the same being, not a justiciable one.
Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the said observations/comments made in the ‘Impugned Order’, keeping in tune with the conformity of well-settled principles of Law.