Writ Appeal No. 122 of 2025 · The High Court · 2025

M/s. Sloyd Ventures Private Limited, Represented by its Director, Having its office at 4th Floor, H. No. 1-1 1-251t191A. Jayalakshriri Towers, Motilal Nihru Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Telangana 5000'16 ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 29-11-2024 passed in W.p No. 40530 of 2025, pending disposal of main writ appeal I I k lA NO: 2 oF 2025 Petition under section l5l CPC praying that in the circumst:lnces stated in rh" ,r;"j'i#1'6;"i;;;d or the peiitio;' ihe Hish court mav be preased to susoendtheopera'.ionottnenesolutiondatedlg-1o-202llpassedbytheGeneral ;".i"";;il; iltirno"nt t.'to + company and other consequential steps taken in ii"'i.,p,g""0 order' pending disposal of main writ aprreal ilJ#;""i lA NO: 3 oF 2025 Petition und':r Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the peiitio;' ine Uigt'^ Crrurt may be pleased to :r#il"i^; ;;;)r'rtion of t-n" o'a"i vide Ref No le(7:l) RD (sER) /sec 140/ i[iiiioi,)izoizl3830 dated 12'10'2022' on the file of the resional Direclor i e ;;;;";l N. 3 p3nding disposal of main writ appeal ' WRIT APPEAL N C,: 129 OF 2025 Writ Aooeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferre'J against the order-dated ;u;;i\\;^;;;;,0 i" w p No 40531 of 2022 and pass. on the fite or the Hish court. i' Between: Anandram Sarda and Associates' Chartered. Accounta'lts' Proprietor' SriJJ st" Shii- Ramnaravan Sarda Aoe 44 Years' occ' il;#;; professiona, Having ]r."oiii""'li +iOb-A, Z"a Flooi, Hiqhness bll-Ooili; lbro, noiO r''ro. 10, Banjara Hills, HvderabadlTelangana-34' ^lvlaurya, ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND 1 2 3 4 Union of lrrcia, Represented by its Principal Secretary, lt/inistn/ of corporate Affairs, Nelt Delhi Reoistrar'rf Companies, Telangana' Represenled bv.its Registrar' a;:il;i"'i;';,[, o5i po't, Niasole, Bbndlasuda Hvderaba'l-500 068 Reoional Director (Southern Eastern Region)' Ministry.of Corporate Aifailsr^^ -Nasole' Bandlaguda' Hvderabad-s00 i.r".iii;;;, a"rbraie Bhavan, GSI Post, 068. Ir.,4/s. Cell Pl.rnet Private Limited, Represented by its Director Having its office ;;'il il 6Lgump"t Hyderabad, Telangana - 500016 Javalakshmi Towers, l\'4otilal Nehru lJagar, 't-it-isttlrc/e, -2 ^F^loor ' ...RESPONDENTS IANO:1O F 2025 Petition unrler Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court mav be pleased to iuspiNo ir," operation of the order vide Ref No. 19(74)RD (sER)/sec. 140/ iAel qoasstzoz2l3826 dated 12.10.2022, on the file of the Regional Director i.e' Respondent No 3, pending disposal of main writ appeal I lA NO: 2 OF 202s Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitjlled itqupBgrt of the pptition, the High Court may be pleased to SUSPENO{llb operati6n of the Order dated 29.'1 1.2024 passed in W.P. No. 40531 of 2024, pending disposal of main writ appeal lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Resolution dated 19-'10-2022 passed by the General Body of the Respondent No. 4 Company and other consequential steps taken in pursuance of the impugned order, pending disposal of main writ appeal WR lT APPEAL NO: 139 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Writ preferred against the Order Daled.29l11l2}24 in Wp. No. 40537 of 2025 and pass on the file of the High Court. Between: Anandram Sarda and Associates, Chartered Accountants, Proprietor, Anandram Sarda S/o Shri Ramnarayan Sarda Age, 44 Years, Occ. Professional, Having its office at 202-8, 2nd Floor, Highness Maurya, 8-2- 601lP,7810, Road No. 10, Bantara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana-34. a ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND 1 2 3 4 Union of lndia, Represented by its Principal Secretary, tvlinistry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi. Registrar oI Companies, Telangana, Represented by its Registrar, 2 Floor, Coiporate Bhavan, GSI Post, Nagole, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad-s00 068. Regional Director (Southern Eastern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs. 3rd Floor, Corporate Bhavan, GSI Post, Nagole, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad-S0O 068. f\ills. Kani Solutions lndia Private Limited, Represented by its Director, Having its office at 1-89/G/36201, Nasuja, Gafoor Nagar, Madhapur, Telangana, lndia - 500 08'l ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to /, suspend the operation of the Resolution dated 19-10-2022 passed by the General Body of the Resp,tndent No.4 Company and other consequential steps taken it pursuance of the irnpugned order, pending disposal of main writ appeal IA No,t#.,ozs s petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filec in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased be pleased to suspenl the operation of the order vide Ref No 19(72) RD (SER) /Sec iaOl teAAgSS I 7;n22t3824 dated 13/10/2022, on the file: of the rr:gional Director i-e., respondent Nc,.3 pending disposal of main writ appea IAN O:3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit fileci n support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 2911112024 passed in W P No. 40537 of 2025, pending dist,osal of main writ appeal Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. P INDRA PRAKASH (rN ALL THE WRII PETITIONS) Counsel for the Rr-'spondent No.1: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REP., FOR SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAFI DY. SOLICITOR i (tN ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS) GEN. OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2&3: -- Counsel for the R,espondent No.4: SRI S. RAVI SR. COUNSEL REP., FOR M/S (tN ALL THE WR|TPETITIONS) R.S ASSOCIATES The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT , THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND ..'+'"' s .- THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE REI{UI{A YARA WRIT APPEAL Nos.l22 129 and 139 of2025 i COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Paul) Sri P.Indra Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri B. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondent No. 1; and Sri S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s. R.S. Associates, for respondent No.4.

2. Heard on admission. a

3. These intra court appea-ls assajl the similar orders and therefore on the joint request of the parties, the appeals are analogously heard.

4. The appellant/aggrieved auditor (writ petitioner) takes exception to the orders of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.40530 of 2022, dated 29.11.2024, and rwo other writ petitions, whereby the learned Single Judge in view of Rule 78(2) and (3) of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2O16 (hereinafter referred to as, the Rules') relegated the appellant to *-l 2 avail the .1 rernedy before the. Nationa_l Company Law Tribunal '9 (hereinafter rr:ferred to as, 'NCLTJ.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant raised twofold submissions. Firstlg, the writ petitions were Iiled in the yeat 2022 and therefore, a-fter almost two years, the appellant shouid not have been rt-'lr:gated to avail the alternative remedy. Second,lg, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s.Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Oflicer_cum_Assgssing Authorityr, *re alternative remedy is not a bar for the appellant and the writ pr:titions can be entertained. l'

6. Learnetl Senior Counsel for respondent No.4 supported the impugned ordr:rs of the learned Single Judge and submitted that the appellanl, in the alfidavits frled along with the writ petitions, pleaded that it has no alternative remedy bu1_ to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of Inclia. When respondent No.4 entered appearance and brought it to the notice of the learned Single Judge that there exists a statutoly remedy, the appellant u'as rightly relegated to the appropriate forum. '1zoz:; r scc alt \ \ I+ , l I I i I 3 7 . The - parties have confined their arguments to the extent .d'' { -r indicated above and no other point is pressed.

8. It is not the case of the appellant that it did not have remedy under Rule 78(2) and (3) of the Rules before the NCLT. The appellalt has made an incorrect statement in the aff,rdavits filed in support of the writ petitions that it had no alternative remedy but to approach the High Court. When it was pointed out after appezrrance of the other side, the writ Court relegated the appellant to avail the said remedy.

9. So far the judgment of the Supreme Court in' M/s.Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (supra) is concerned, it distinguishes between 'maintainability' and 'entertainability'. Every petition which is maintainable is not necessar5r to be entertained. The Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai2, opined that despite availability of statutory remedy, a petition can be entertained in certain circumstances including 1) violation of principles of natural justice, 2) if order is passed by an authority having no jurisdiction, 3) constitutionality of a provision is under challenge etc. The said judgment was again :, (1998) 8 SCC 1 J 4 consider.qd'by thq Supreme Court in U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and Another3 ald it was opinecl as under:- " ,t 7'. ...But nonnally, tlrc High Cour,l should not entertain utit p.etitions unless it is shou.,n that there is something more in a case, something going to the root of the juisdiction of the offtcer, something uhich tuould shotu that it would be o case of palpable iniustice to the utit petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies prouia'ed bg the statute . . . ."

10. The Supreme Court in its recent judgment dated 1O.O4.2024 in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO.Bank+, disapproved '-f:e order of the Telangana High Cor:rt in W.P.No.5275 of 2027, dated O4.O2.2O22, wherein a Division Bench o1' this Court r of a-lternative entertained a Writ Petition despite availabitity remedy. The S;upreme Court opined that merely becamse a petition is maintainatll:, i1 i" not necessary to entertain a petition. It is the discretion ol' the Court to entertain. a pedtion and not a compulsion. The relevant paragraph reads as under: " 1 5. It could thus be seen that, this Court ,has clearlg heLd that the High Court uill ordinarilg not entert;dln a petltlo'7. under Article 226 of the Consttitution { an elJective remedy is aualla.ble to the aggrteved. person. It has been held. that this rute applies uith greater rigour in mdtters Tnuolalnq recotEra of tdxes, cess, fees. other tgpes of putrlic moneg and the dues of banks and other Jinan<:ial institutions. The Court clearly obserued ' (2005) 8 scc 264 4 (2024) 4 s.c.R. 541 / l l 5 * tlrlor:, ythiJe _dealing. with tte petitions inuotuing te chattenge to tLrc action takenfor reLouiry i1 tie puOtic ?":t: "!., the High Court mist t up i""^iri"inot tn" legi.slations enacted bg p"rtiaienl '--oia"' srot" Legi.slatures for recouery of such du"s ir" i' Joa" rnto -"*ntofn tLtem.selues inasmuch as theg not oitg compretenstue procedure for ,.iu"ry of thi dies aut also enuisage constitutioi of ouasi_itaiciil- o"ia" f* redressal of the grieuan." i1 ing aggA"r"a i;rson. n hos been herd that, ttyusi th; piiiiri-rf-ii u,gn -of Court under Article 2 the'Coitituion*on o7 u.tidest amplitude, still the Courts cannot i;-;biivious of ,::. oI^ se.tf--imgosed restraint .ra"Li" os tno ::::.^:y^.?yn *nn l.rlerd that though the rute of exnaustnn oJ altemattue -remedg ,, o rule g2f d:s!reEpa__qnd__n"l_e"e of ""^;bion.- "tti' tt i" d.ifficutt to fathom i' court "ng shoutd entertqin a peuaon JitZ ""iii';;;i 226 of tlv Constitution. r"o.;;ihgi;uig :*: _26 (Emphasis Supplied)

11. In the instant case, it was not argued tfrJ tne impugned orders before the writ Court were passed by incompetent authority' It is arso not argued that if the apperant is reregated to avail the alternative remedy, it will cause any palpable injustice to it. In fact, the appellant approached the writ court with an incorrect statement that there exists no alternative remedy.

12. In this backdrop, merely because the writ petitions remained pending for about two years and upon entertaining the objection "t other side, the appellant is relegated to avail the said remedy, *.: appellant a-lone must be blamed for the same. If the appellant t l I , EI 1 would have apprised the Court at the time of admission itself that there exists ar alternative remedy, the Court could have taken an informed. decision at that point of time itself whether the appellant is to b,e"+€iegar.edlo-ifre said remedy. After having suppressed the said fact, it ir; no more open to the appellant to highlight the grievance abotLt the same.

13. In the interest of justice, while upholding the orrlers of the learned Single Judge, we deem it proper to observe that if the appellant files such applications before NCLT zrs observed by the learned Singk: Judge within three weeks frou todal', the said applications be decided on merits and shall not be dismi3Sed on the ground of CelaY. Accordingly, the writ appeals are disPosed of No order as to t t4 costs. Miscella:-reous petitions pgndinq, if any, strall stand closed' DEPUTY ".v" SD/. T. KRISHNA KUM AR AR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The Princ p.al Secretary, t\4inistry of Corporate Affairsi, New Delhi Thc Reoistrar. Reoistrar of Companies, Telangana, 2 Floor, Corporate ghirrnl i;li iostiNagote, Bandlaguda' Hvderabad-500 068 The Reoional Director (Southern Eastern Region), Ivlinistry of Corporate nti"il.. iiJ Fi*i,-corpbrrt" Bhavan, GSI Poat, Nagole, Bandlaguda' Hyderabad.500 068. One CC t,) SRl. P INDRA PRAKASH Advocate [OPUC] One CC to I\,4/S R.S ASSOCIATES AdVOCAIC [OPUC] One CC tr SRl. GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy. SOLICITOR GEN OF INDIA loPUCl Two CD Oc pies To, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 KKS KKS ,:" "d1 lilj''.,:r HtGH.C_guRlT * -, DATED:031Ct312025 COMMON JUDGMENT WA.Nos.12',2,129 and 139 of 2025 TIME LTMIT ( c t) 1rt ts ST4 16 07lAii ?.il:5 ii -^;, ll r i- "'"'-:"1' a L] DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS ,