2025 (11) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AR SHARMA MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND JATINDRANATH SWAIN MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Appellants : Mr. TK. Bhaskar & Mr. Niranjan S. Rao, Advocates, Mr. Jerin Asher Sojan, Mr. Adharsh. S & Mr. Avinash Krishnan Ravi, Advocates For the Respondents  : Mr. D. Narendar Naik, Advocate for R2 Ms. Priyadarshini Natarajan, Advocate for R4 Mr. TK. Bhaskar & Mr. Niranjan S. Rao, Advocates for R3, R4 & R5 ORDER A. Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 67/2025 This company appeal has been preferred by the Appellant being aggrieved as against the impugned order that, was rendered by the Ld. NCLT Hyderabad Bench in CP/135/241/HDB/2018, being the proceedings, which were carried under Section 241 and 242, 213, and 119 of the Companies Act, 2013, to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2025, and that they will not have any objection as such if the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Ld. Tribunal to re-decide the matter, that is, the CP No. 135/241/HDB/2018 on its own merits. Owing to the aforesaid submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Respondents, and owing to the argument extended by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant of not having been provided with an effective opportunity of hearing, which is accepted by the Respondents, exclusively for the aforesaid reason, the impugned order of 10.03.2025, as passed in CP No. 135/241/HDB/2018, is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Ld. NCLT Hyderabad Bench to re-decide the CP No. 135/241/HDB/2018 in the matters of Dr. Srinivas Sunkavally....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....any. The Appellant, while putting challenge to the impugned order, has primarily argued the company appeal on the ground that, the impugned order happens to be in violation of principle of natural justice, for the reason being that, an effective opportunity of hearing was not accorded to him to enable to establish his case, and hence it cannot be said to be an effective adjudication of his rights, which were likely to be affected by the impugned order which allowed the company petition. Besides that, there were number of other issues, which were also raised by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, out of which one of them was pertaining to the aspect of limitation. When the matter was taken up today, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondents h....