S. Ravi Kumar, Chairperson
1. This Appeal is preferred against Order dated 22.05.2023 passed by Registrar in AIR 18/2023, declining to register the Appeal in terms of Rule 6 (4) of Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter called the DRAT Procedure Rules, 1994).
2. As per Office Objection No. 11, the Appeal Memorandum and Vakalat are signed showing Appellants as Managing Director and Director of M/s. Nest Foods & Beverages Limited, therefore, Office insisted to put seal of the Company along with resolution of Company. As Appellants failed to comply with the same, in spite of granting ample opportunity, Registrar declined the Appeal on 22.05.2023, against which, present Chamber Appeal is filed.
3. Heard Advocate for Appellants.
4. Advocate for Appellants represented that Company is not in existence, and it went on liquidation, therefore, there is no necessity to affix the seal of Company and produce Resolution of Company. When it was put to Advocate for Appellants whether Liquidator is shown as a party to Appeal, she represented that, Liquidator is not made as a party to the Appeal. In fact, there is not even averment in the Memorandum of Appeal supporting the submission made on behalf of Appellants. Further, as seen from Memorandum of Appeal, both the Appellants have shown their address as Managing Director and Director, but not in their individual capacity, showing their individual address, therefore, argument of Counsel for Appellants cannot be accepted, and Office is perfectly justified in raising the objection, and Registrar is absolutely right in declining the Appeal for not complying with Office Objections; I do not find any grounds to interfere with the decline Order dated 22.05.2023, and the Chamber Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5. Accordingly, Chamber Appeal No. 1/2024 is dismissed.
