MCA

Appearance of authorised representative before NCLT-Amendment to Rule 63

Appearance of authorised representative before NCLT. Central Govt, Regional Director, RoC and Official Liquidator may authorise an officer/Advocate to represent before Tribunal

MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS

NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2017

G.S.R. 1061(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of section 469 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016, namely: —

1. Short title and commencement. — (1) These rules may be called the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (Amendment) Rules, 2017.

(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

2. In the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016, for rule 63, the following rule shall be substituted, namely:-

“63. Appearance of authorised representative.-

(1) Subject to provisions of section 432 of the Act, a party to any proceedings or appeal before the Appellate Tribunal may either appear in person or authorise one or more chartered accountants or company secretaries or cost accountants or legal practitioners or any other person to present his case before the Appellate Tribunal.

(2) The Central Government, the Regional Director or the Registrar of Companies or Official Liquidator may authorise an officer or an Advocate to represent in the proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal.

(3) The officer authorised by the Central Government or the Regional Director or the Registrar of Companies or the Official Liquidator shall be an officer not below the rank of Junior Time Scale or company prosecutor.”.

[F. No. 1/30/2013-CL-V]
AMARDEEP SINGH BHATIA, Jt. Secy.

Note : The principal rules were published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R. 717(E), dated the 21st July, 2016.

Share

Recent Posts

  • ICAI

CA Misconduct – Order quashed as judgment not passed by same members who heard arguments.

CA Misconduct – Appellate order quashed as final judgment was not passed by same members who heard arguments. In a…

17 hours ago
  • Insurance

Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act – SC

Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act. Courts to award a composite…

23 hours ago
  • Income Tax

CIT notice u/s 263 quashed as AO rightly took DVO value of property as actual sale price

CIT Revision notice u/s 263 quashed as the Assessing Officer rightly taken DVO value of property sold as actual sale…

3 days ago
  • GST

Extension of timeline for implementation of Ship To GSTIN & Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities

Extension of timeline for implementation of mandatory "Ship To GSTIN" and Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities GSTN Advisory dated…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

No protective addition required when additions is confirmed in hands of searched person – ITAT

No protective addition required in the hand of a third party when additions have been confirmed in the hands of…

4 days ago
  • arbitration

Limitation u/s 34 of Arbitration Act commences on disposal of application u/s 33 by Arbitral Tribunal – SC

Limitation for filing application u/s 34 of Arbitration Act commence from date on which application u/s 33 is disposed of…

1 week ago