NCLT, which had originally given less than two days to the company to file their reply in the matter, had to settle for two weeks after ZEE approached the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), challenging the initial order of the tribunal.
While setting aside NCLT’s order, NCLAT observed in its 15-page order that the tribunal had committed an “error in not granting reasonable and sufficient time” to ZEE for filing a reply, which was a “complete violation of Rule 37 of the NCLT Rules and Principles of Natural Justice”.
Appearing in the NCLT, senior counsels Navroz Seervai (for ZEE), Sudipto Sarkar (for Goenka) and Arun Kathpalia (for the independent directors), asked for a minimum of two weeks to file their reply.
The division-bench of the tribunal agreed and asked the lawyers file the replies.
The whole matter pertains to a requisition notice sent by Invesco, a 17.88% owner in ZEE, seeking an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) of the shareholders for removal of three directors – two of them have quit – and induction of six new independent directors.
ZEE board on October 1st declined the requisition notice, calling it invalid due to multiple legal infirmities.
ZEE has also filed a civil suit in the Bombay high court, seeking declaration of the notice as invalid.
