AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Hybrid Mode)
Oral: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)
We are carving out an exception in this company appeal, so as to meet the ends of justice. In the instant Appeal, the Appellant challenges the impugned order of 26.03.2026, that was passed by Ld. NCLT, Bangalore Bench, while considering the application, being I.A. No.191/2025, preferred by the Appellant wherein he prayed for the pen drive containing records of the Board meetings, to be placed on record in the shape of additional documents, to be considered in the proceedings of CP No.66/BB/2021, being carried before the Ld. Tribunal under the provisions contained under Section 271 & 272 of the Companies Act, 2013.
By virtue of the impugned order, the Ld. Tribunal has declined to accept the pen drive, which was furnished by the Appellant by way of I.A. No.191/2025, on the ground that, the said pen drive has not been accompanied by the transcription of the voice recordings and therefore the application is not maintainable.
In order to answer the observation that has been made by the Ld. Tribunal, the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that, in response thereto, subsequently, the Appellant has supplied the transcription of the voice recordings by filing a memorandum, as it was observed by the Ld. Tribunal in the impugned order, and that was in fact on record, but what bearing it would have, has not been considered or observed in the impugned order. Hence, the Appellant seeks that, in fact, the reason, which has been observed in the impugned order for declining to take the application I.A. No.191/2025, is not sustainable and contrary to the records itself, against the interest of justice as it deprives a party to lead evidence to substantiate his case.
Being conscious of the fact that, we are deciding this company appeal at this admission stage, the nature of I.A. No.191/2025, would take the shape of an interlocutory application that would be treated to have been preferred under Rule 40 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which confers enough powers on the Tribunals to permit furnishing of documents and to call upon the party to the proceedings to furnish such documents, as it would be necessary, for the purposes to effectively adjudicate the proceedings. If we consider the language used under Rule 40 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, it is the prerogative of the Bench, which may call upon the party to submit additional evidence when it feels that additional evidence is required to be produced. Since, we are in an appellate forum, in continuation to the proceedings as held by the Ld. Tribunal, while exercising our derived powers under Rule 40 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, we feel that the purpose would be served if the transcription, which has been supplied by the Appellant in the shape of a memorandum is permitted to be read to satisfy the conditions of supplying of the transcription, as well as the spoken words, as it would have been required to be submitted by the Appellant along with I.A. No.191/2025.
In that eventuality, while disposing of this company appeal, we observe that, the application I.A. No.191/2025, will not be rejected, merely on the ground that the transcription has not been supplied by the Appellant as observed in the impugned order and rather to the contrary, the transcription supplied by the Appellant in the shape of a memorandum, would be treated as to be a transcription filed in support of I.A. No.191/2025, and the additional document thus filed would be taken on record and would be considered on its own merit after providing an opportunity to the other side to controvert the same, when the proceeding of the company petition itself is considered on its merits.
Subject to the above the company appeal stands ‘disposed of’.