Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, Member - (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-respondent--Pramod Khosla against order dated January 10, 2017-(Khosla Steel Industries P. Ltd. v. K. Steel P. Ltd, 2017 202 CompCas 603) passed by the National Company Law Tribunal Kolkata Bench (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in C.P. No. 163 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the Tribunal allowed the petition filed by the respondents/petitioners under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 and passed the following direction (page 618): "ORDER The company petition is hereby allowed and respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are restrained from representing themselves as directors of the company and the Registrar of Companies is also directed to delete the names of respondents Nos. 2 to 4 from the signatory details of the MCA portal of respondent No. 1-company and further direction is being issued to allow the four directors nominated by the holding company to file Form 32/DIR-12 using the digital signature of any of them and to reflect the correct position in the signatory details of the MCA portal by showing the names of all four nominee directors of the holding company. Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are also being directed to hand over the register, records, returns, books, documents pertaining to the affairs of the company which are in their possession. Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are further restrained from dealing with, disposing of, encumbering, alienating and/or transferring the properties, assets, investments of the company in any manner whatsoever. There will be no order as to costs." Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned order on the ground(s) that the impugned order is perverse, not based on evidence and no reasons have been shown as a result of non-application of mind; and that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by reviewing an earlier order and judgment passed by the erstwhile Company Law Board.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the power exercised by the Tribunal amounts to sitting in appeal over the decision of the High Court which has already passed an interim order in a case preferred by Mr. Bishendar Singh against the order and judgment passed by the Company Law Board.
(3.) In this regard it is submitted that the Jharkhand High Court vide order dated May 2, 2013 has already ordered for investigation by the Income-tax Department, without deciding the case on merit concerning the dispute of purported ownership and membership rights of the appellant with the respondents, i.e., between the Khosla family members on the one hand and some rank outsiders on the other in connivance with some of the members of Khosla family.;