Plea to Recall AA’s Order Freezing Club Memberships Rejected as There Were No Procedural Lapse by Single-Member Bench | NCLT

Case Details: Union of India (Ministry of Corporate Petitioner Affairs) v. Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. - [2024] 168 taxmann.com 430 (NCLT-New Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar, President & Avinash Srivastava, Technical Member
• Deepak Khosla, Adv. & Col A. Khanna, SM, for the Applicant.
• Ms Raveena Rai, Snehal Kakrania, Apeksha Dhanvijay, Raunak Dhillon, Ms Ananya Dhar Chaudhary, Ms Isha Malik, Gaurav Librehan, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, a meeting of the General Committee (GC) of the respondent club was held, wherein the issue of suspension of the applicant/ex-employee of the respondent club was discussed. GC issued the applicant a show-cause notice, and the services of the applicant were terminated.

The applicant filed an application to challenge his termination before the instant Tribunal and the said application was dismissed. Notification dated 20-4-2020 was issued vide which the single Judicial Members were designated as Bench in view of the seriousness of Coronavirus to deal with urgent matters till lockdown ends.

The Single Member (Judicial) of the instant Tribunal vide the impugned interim order directed the respondents that acceptance of new membership or fee or any enhancement be kept on hold.

The Instant application was filed by the applicant, praying to recall the impugned order with all consequential effects passed CORAM NON JUDICE, in breach of mandatory provisions of section 419(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.

The applicant contended that Member (Judicial) acting singly, also acting as (acting) President, himself issued a Notification on the Administrative side announcing the formation of various benches, including the Principal Bench.

It was noted that the instant was not the case where any procedural error was committed, i.e. a fraud was played on the Court in which circumstances, a judgment could always be recalled and, hence, recall of the impugned orders was not warranted.

NCLT Held

The NCLT observed that there was no breach of any of the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 in any manner whatsoever. Further, the applicant filed multiple applications to contest the same issue and multifarious litigation initiated by the applicant before various fora created a chaotic situation for the respondent.

The NCLT held that mere words were put forward by the applicant to plead that an element of prejudice in orders exists, and these were vague allegations without any substantive piece of evidence to establish. Therefore, the instant application was to be dismissed, and the cost was to be imposed on the applicant.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Satya Narayana Jhunjhunwala v. Supriyo Choudhary, (para 39)
• Mahindra Wadhwani v. Reed Relays & Electronics India Ltd
• Kerala Chamber of Commerce; Writ Petition (s) (Civil) No (s). 722/2019 Sonu Cargo Movers (I) Pvt. Ltd & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (para 48)
• Talli Gram Panchayat v. Union of India Civil Appeal Nos 383- 384 of 2022, (para 49) distinguished