9 Registrar of Companies, West Bengal vs. Goouksheer Farm Fresh (P) Ltd. and Another Company Appeal (AT) No. 127 of 2020 National Company Law Appellate Tribunal [(2021) 160 CLA 317 (NCLAT)] Date of order: 19th November, 2020
There is no provision under the Companies Act, 2013 that permits the Registrar of Companies to take on record the documents sought to be registered / filed without payment of requisite filing fee and / or payment of additional fees even if company is in ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’
FACTS
The Registrar of Companies, West Bengal (ROC), had struck off the name of the company, M/s G Private Limited, after complying with all the requirements of section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from Register of Companies) Rules, 2016.
The ‘Financial Creditor’ (M/s P Pvt. Ltd.) had filed an application u/s 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the Corporate Debtor, M/s G Pvt. Ltd. The application to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor was admitted on 13th December, 2019.
The NCLT, Kolkata Bench, through its order dated 22nd January, 2020, allowed restoration of the company with a direction to the ROC not to levy any fee / penalty on the company because of the fact that the company was in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
The ROC preferred an instant appeal against the NCLT order contending that pursuant to section 403 (1) of the Companies Act, 2013, any document required to be filed under the Act shall be filed within the time prescribed in the relevant provisions on payment of such fee as may be prescribed. Further, it was contended that in view of the first proviso to section 403(1) of the Act, if any document, fact or information required to be submitted, filed, registered or recorded under sections 92 or 137 is not submitted, filed, registered or recorded within the period provided in those sections, without prejudice to any other legal action or liability under this Act, it may be submitted, filed, registered or recorded after the expiry of the period so provided in those sections on payment of such additional fee as may be prescribed, which shall not be less than Rs. 100 per day and different amounts may be prescribed for different classes of companies.
HELD
The NCLAT stated in its order that the Tribunal was empowered by Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 to make such orders as may be necessary for meeting the ends of justice. However, it was to be pointed out that the same cannot be pressed into service when section 403(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 deals expressly with the fee for filing, etc., coupled with Rule 12 of the Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014. These provisions were regarded as in-built, self-contained and exhaustive ones, and viewed in that perspective, the invocation of Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 was not needed.
Further, NCLAT observed that the direction issued by the NCLT to the ROC ‘not to levy any fee / penalty’ to the company because it was in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was legally untenable, especially in the absence of any express provisions under the Companies Act, 2013 and the relevant Rules for waiver of fees / penalty in respect of filing of documents required to be registered / filed under the Companies Act. Hence, the said direction was set aside to secure the ends of substantial justice.
10 Sandeep Agarwal and Another vs. Union of India and Another W.P. (C) 5490/2020 Source: Delhi High Court Official Website Date of order: 2nd September, 2020
The purpose and intent of the Companies Fresh Start Scheme, 2020 is to allow a fresh start for companies which have defaulted. For the Scheme to be effective, directors of these defaulting companies must be given an opportunity to avail the Scheme
FACTS
The petition was filed by Sandeep Agarwal and Muskoka Agarwal (collectively referred to as P), both of whom were directors in two companies, namely M/s KP Private Limited and M/s KPP Private Limited. The name of M/s KPP Private Limited was struck off from the Register of Companies on 30th June, 2017 due to non-filing of financial statements and annual returns. P, being directors of M/s KPP Private Limited, were also disqualified with effect from 1st November, 2016 for a period of five years till 31st October, 2021 u/s 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013. In view of their disqualification, their Director Identification Numbers (DINs) and Digital Signature Certificates (DSCs) were also cancelled. Consequently, they were unable to carry on the business and file returns, etc., in the active company, M/s KP Private Limited.
Through the present petition, the disqualification was challenged and quashing was sought of the order disqualifying the directors.
HELD
The Delhi High Court observed that the Scheme provides an opportunity to put their affairs in order for active companies that may have defaulted in filing of documents. It thus provides directors of such companies a fresh cause of action to challenge their disqualification qua the active companies. In the present case, the relief was sought by the directors of two companies, one whose name was struck off and one which was still active. In such a situation, the disqualification and cancellation of DINs was a severe impediment for them in availing remedies under the Scheme in respect of the active company. The purpose and intent of the Scheme was to allow a fresh start for companies which have defaulted. The Scheme can be effective if its directors are given an opportunity to avail of it.
It is not uncommon to see directors of one company being directors in another company. Under such circumstances, to disqualify directors permanently and not allowing them to avail their DINs and DSCs could render the Scheme itself nugatory as its launch constitutes a fresh and continuing cause of action.
Thus, in order to enable P to continue the business of the active company, M/s KP Private Limited, the Court directed MCA to set aside the disqualification of P as directors. The DINs and DSCs of P were also directed to be re-activated within a period of three working days from the date of the order.
11 Medeor Hospitals Ltd. vs. Registrar of Companies, Delhi Company Appeal No. 394 of 2018 National Company Law Appellate Tribunal [(2020) 156 CLA 129 (NCLAT)]
Date of order: 29th January, 2020
Where application for conversion of public limited company into a private limited company has complied with the requisite conditions for conversion, the application has to be approved
FACTS
M/s M Limited was incorporated on 4th August, 2004 under the Companies Act, 1956 as a public limited company and was a wholly-owned subsidiary of M/s V Private Limited, having eight equity shareholders. While the holding company M/s. V Private Limited was holding almost 100 % of the issued share capital, seven other shareholders were holding one share each on behalf of M/s V Private Limited.
A petition was filed before the NCLT for conversion of the company into a private limited company. The Delhi Bench of the NCLT by its order of 28th August, 2018, observed that the petition was filed three months after the date of passing of the Special Resolution. In the notice for the EGM, no reasons had been assigned for giving a shorter notice. It was further observed by the NCLT that on 17th October, 2016, the statutory auditor had resigned and on the same day, a new auditor M/s DY & Co. was appointed. It was noticed that the new auditor signed the balance sheet on the same day. This raised a doubt as to how the new auditor could have conducted the audit in one day. Further, two independent directors resigned after the passing of the resolution for conversion and this fact was not mentioned in the petition. It was also found that the claims of two objectors, namely, Mr. PS and Mr. RS and E&Y LLP were pending before the Arbitral Tribunal. During such pendency it would not be appropriate to permit conversion of the company from public to private limited. In view of these shortcomings, the NCLT rejected the petition. M/s M Limited, being aggrieved with this order of the NCLT, filed the present appeal.
HELD
* NCLAT considered the issue of limitation referring to Rule 68(1) of the NCLT Rules, 2016 which provide that a petition u/s 14(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 for conversion of a public company into a private company shall,
not less than three months from the date of the passing of the special resolution, be filed with the Tribunal in Form No. NCLT-1. This means that such petition
shall be filed after three months from the date of passing of the special resolution. Thus, the petition was well within the limitation.
* The board resolution of the holding company dated 17th June, 2017 mentioned that written consent of shareholders was obtained for shorter notice for the resolution dated 14th August, 2017. No illegality or irregularity in passing the resolution dated 14th August, 2017 was found by the NCLAT.
* M/s M Limited, vide its appointment letter dated 2nd September, 2016, appointed M/s DY & Co. tax auditor and, after the appointment, M/s DY & Co had reviewed and signed the financial statements for the F.Y. 2015-16. In such circumstances the explanation given by M/s M Limited was satisfactory as to how M/s DY & Co. had signed the financial statements for the year
2015-16.
* NCLAT further considered the submission of M/s M Limited that it was a wholly-owned subsidiary and unlisted public company. Therefore, in view of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014, appointment of at least two independent directors was not applicable. Hence, non-disclosure of the resignation of two independent directors would not affect the merit of the petition in any manner.
* M/s M Limited also placed on record the ‘No dues certificates’ obtained from all creditors (except the dispute between E&Y and M/s M Limited as it was pending before the Arbitral Tribunal), hence, the conversion of M/s M Limited shall not affect the responsibility and liabilities of M/s M Limited.
The NCLAT thus noted that M/s M Limited had fulfilled all the conditions for conversion and the shortcomings pointed out by the NCLT were inconsequential. Therefore, the NCLAT set aside the order and approved the special resolution dated 14th August, 2017 for conversion of M/s M Limited from public to private company.
12 R. Narayanasamy vs. The Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu Company Appeal (AT) No. 171 of 2020 Source: NCLAT Official Website Date of order: 19th January, 2021
Divergent views on disposal of the appeal pertaining to striking off of the name of company after following necessary procedure u/s 248 of the Companies Act, 2013
FACTS
This appeal was filed against the order dated 5th May, 2020 passed by the NCLT, Chennai dismissing the appeal u/s 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of the name of the company ‘M/s Shri L S Pvt. Ltd.’ which was struck off by the ROC after following the necessary procedure u/s 248 of the Companies Act, 2013. R N, who was the Managing Director of the company, claimed that non-filing of annual returns and filing statements was due to absence of expert professional guidance. Further, the striking off was prejudicial to the interest of the company and that returns were not filed out of ignorance and inadvertence.
HELD
The members of the NCLAT Bench delivered divergent judgments on analysing the law as it was existing, on the basis of what is ‘just’ u/s 252(3) of the Companies Act. Thereafter, it was placed before a third member. This third member of the NCLAT observed that section 252 provides for relief to aggrieved parties when the Registrar notifies a company as dissolved u/s 248 of the Companies Act, 2013.
The name of the company was required to be restored if the NCLT
* was satisfied that the company, at the time of its name being struck off, carried out any business or operation,
OR
* otherwise it was ‘just’ that the name of the company be restored to the register of companies.
In the present matter, the admitted fact was that when the name of the company was struck off, it was not functional and was not carrying on business or operations for more than two years immediately preceding the financial year and thus attracted section 248(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013. When the question of law has neither been framed nor referred, and it appeared from the judgments that the two Hon’ble Members had divergent views, on the basis of facts the appeal should be dismissed by not interfering with the dismissal order passed by the NCLT.
13 The Canning Industries Cochin Ltd. vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Company Appeal (AT) No. 115 of 2019 Source: The Securities Appellate Tribunal Official Website Date of order: 28th January, 2020
Whether the issue of unsecured fully convertible debentures (‘FCDs’) by an unlisted public company is rights offer or public offer, or an offer that violates the provisions of private placement of securities under the Companies Act, 2013
FACTS
M/s CIC Ltd., an unlisted public company, passed a special resolution under sections 62(3) and 71 of the Companies Act, 2013 to issue 1,92,900 unsecured fully convertible debentures (FCDs) to its 1,929 shareholders, with a condition that there would exist no right to renounce the offer to any other person. However, only 335 shareholders subscribed to the offering. Consequently, one disgruntled shareholder filed a complaint before SEBI and the NCLT alleging that the company had made a public issue of securities without complying with the applicable provisions of the Companies Act, 2013.
On 18th March, 2019, SEBI passed an order which held that the offer of FCDs made by the company was a ‘deemed public issue’ u/s 42(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 14(2) of the Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Rules, 2014, as the offer was made to more than 200 shareholders and, hence, directed the company to comply with the prescribed provisions of ‘public issue’ in the Act.
Aggrieved by the order, M/s CIC Ltd. appealed before the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) and contended that the issuance of FCDs was neither a rights issue (as the issue was not made on a proportionate basis), nor was it a private placement and that the issue falls u/s 62(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 which had not been considered by SEBI.
HELD
SAT held that a rights issue of FCDs was not a ‘private placement’ of securities as the offer of shares to the company’s shareholders cannot be termed as an offer to a ‘select group of persons’. The expression ‘select group of persons’ means ‘an offer made privately such as to friends and relatives or a selected set of customers distinguished from approaching the general public or to a section of the public by advertisement, circular or prospectus addressed to the public’. Hence, the restriction of subscription of shares to 200 persons or more in the case of private placement of securities envisaged u/s 42 of the Companies Act, 2013 was not applicable in the instant case.
Further, section 62(3) was fully applicable as M/s CIC Ltd. had duly complied with it by passing the special resolution; thus, issuance of FCDs by M/s CIC Ltd. cannot be termed as a public issue or a private placement. Hence, a company issuing FCDs is not mandated to comply with any additional requirement of public issue or private placement specified under sections 23 and 42 of the Companies Act, 2013, respectively.
In light of the aforesaid, the order passed by the whole-time Member cannot be sustained. The interim order as well as the order and the directions so issued were all quashed and thus the appeal was allowed.
14 Hytone Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs. Satabadi Investment Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 258 of 2021
CASE NOTE
1. NCLAT confirmed rejection of the insolvency application even when the same was complete in all respects on the ground of collusion between the applicant creditor and the respondent corporate debtor.
2. Quantum of default was very meagre in comparison to the net worth of the corporate debtor.
3. The corporate debtor had made substantial investments in companies which were under insolvency and also extended corporate guarantee.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(a) Corporate debtor (‘company’) had accepted loan of Rs. 3 lakhs from the financial creditor @ 15% pa.
b) The company accepted the loan default and also acknowledged the debt.
c) The company was also the guarantor for two other companies which were under insolvency and liquidation.
The application u/s 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) was filed by the financial creditor. NCLT rejected the application even after concluding that the application was complete in all respects and the default and debt existed.
The creditor argued that the NCLT has no jurisdiction to go beyond the completeness of the application. It only has to see the completeness of the application along with the existence of debt and default.
NCLAT, after going through the submissions, confirmed the NCLT order. It observed that NCLT has rightly rejected the application and is correct in lifting the corporate veil.
The corporate debtor had stood as corporate guarantor for two companies which were under insolvency and one had even gone under liquidation. The value of the corporate guarantee given by the corporate debtor amounted to Rs. 482 crores while the net worth of the company was Rs. 15 crores. It appeared to the Tribunal that the acknowledgement of debt and acceptance of default was collusive. The defaulted debt of Rs. 3 lakhs was a meagre amount in comparison to the net worth of the company.
The Tribunal also observed that the Court has to see the persons behind the company to come to a conclusion whether the insolvency is proposed to be initiated in a collusive manner. It relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Swiss Ribbons vs. Union of India wherein the Court had held that the insolvency application can be rejected and also cost can be imposed u/s 65 of the IBC. This is a safeguard against fraudulent or malicious initiation of insolvency proceedings.
This judgment has clarified that the insolvency proceedings are not mere compliance proceedings. The Tribunal has seen the real intent of the parties and the IB Code. The object of the Code is to resolve the insolvent companies and in the interest of all stakeholders.
