The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. Prem Jain, S/o. Shyam, aged 60 years 10, Central Avenue, First Floor Maharani Bagh, New Delhi - 110065. ...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER 2 The Union of lndia, Through Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-1 10001

3. Regionat Director, Southeast Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs 3rd.Floor, Coiporate Bhawan Near Water Board, Bancilaguda Thatti Annaram Village' Hayatnagar Nagole, Hyderabad - 500068

4. The Registrar of Companies, E Wing, 2nd Floor, Kendriya Sadan Koramangala, Bangalore-560034, Karnataka

5. Rupal Dhiren Jhaveri, 207, Regent Chambers, 2nd'Floor, 208 Jamnalal Bajaj Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 O21, Maharashtra

6. Komal Marda, Flat No. '103, Queens Court, Apartment Street No. 19 Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad-5000 036, Telangana

7. Pratiksha Amelkar, Rajgir Chamber 12114, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road' Opposite Old Custom House, 31cl Floor, Mumbai-4O0 001, Maharashtra

8. Sheetal Ahuj,a, Embassy Commercial Project Whitefir:ld Pvt Ltd., First Floor- Ground Floor, Block 3A, Embassy Tech Village Outer Ring Road, Near New Horizon Colbge Kaverappa Layout, Devarabeesanahalli Village Bengaluru, Kamataka - 560103

9. Sumit Bhartiar, 1103, Wing R, Plot No.51/8, Godrej ()rigins Eastern Express Highway, Ther Trees, Vikhroli Mumbai 400079 Maharashtra l0.Shravan Sherrma, 3503, B Wing, Raheja lmperia. Worti 45 Shankar Rao Naram Path l-ower Parel Mumbai 400013 Maharashtra. 1'l.Walker Chandiok and Co LLP, 5t1 Floor, No. 65 2 Ellock A Bagmane Tridib Bagmane Tech Park, C V Raman Nagar. Bengaluru-5r30093.

12.Ashish Kedia, 5th Floor No. 65/2, Block A, Bagmanr: Tridib Bagmane Tech Park, C V Rannan Nagar, Bengaluru-560093 'l3.Hemant Maheshwari, 5th Floor. No 65/2 Block A, Bagmane Tridib Bagmane Tech Park, C V Raman Nagar, Bengaluru-560093.

14.Anshu Prakash, B-54, Ground Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi-1 10024

15.Jash Gadhvi, 207, Regent Chambers; 2nd Floor 208 Jamnalal Bajaj Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400 O21 Maharashtra l6.Vasudev Garg, G-17, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi 100065 Email. vasud evgargl@ rajda rba rrealty. com ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition underr Section 151 CPC praying that in thr: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cc,urt may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 09.01 .2025 p,assed by the Learned Single Judge in WP No. 30273 of 2024, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI S.NIRANJAN REDDY, Sr. ()OUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI TARUN G.REDDY Counsel for the Re:;pondent No.I: SRI AVINASH DESAI, {ir. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI VADEENDRA JOSHI Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUry SOLICITOFI GENERIAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.10: SRI A.VENKATESH, Sir. COUNSEL The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE TION'BLE THE ACTING CHIET JI'STICD SUJOY PAT'L AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE REIII'KA YARA WRIT APPEAL No.118 of2O25 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'bl-e the Acting Chief Justicr Sujog Paul) Sri S. Niraljan Reddy, learned Senior counsel appears for Sri Tarun G: Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel appears for Sri Veedendra Joshi, learned counsel for respondent No.l, Sri A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel appears for respondent No. 1O and Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. With the consent, finally heard.

3. This intra-Court Appeal takes exception to the order passed in W.P.No.3O273 of 2024, dated 09.O1.2O25.

4. karned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that this is second visit of tlre appellants to this Court. Earlier the Writ Court by order dated 07.11.2024 allowed the writ petition without putting the present appellants to notice, who is respondent Nos.17 and 15 in the writ petition. Aggrieved, W.A'Nos. 1315 and 1317 of 2024 were filed by the appellant and other parties, who were not put to notice. The Division Bench by order dat.ed 22.11.2024 set q- 2 aside the order dared 07 .11.2024 and restored the writ petition for hearing. Thereafter, the writ petition came-up lbr hearing. On the question of interim relief, learned Writ C)ourt has passed impugned direction to Regional Director/respondent No.2 to correct the error in the impugned order dated 22.og.2o23 with regard to the fact of payment made by respondent No.Z on behalf of the petitioner.

5. l,earned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the petitioner prayed for following relief in the writ petition: "74. For the reasons mentioned above, it is humbly prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to issue any o.der, direction or Writ more particularly: (a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing and settine aside the order dated 22nd Au t 2023. passecl by the Respondent No.2 i.e. the Resional Director, South East Resion, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Hyderabad to the it records that the Pel.itioner has limited extent that paid the compounding fee vide SRN No.K4945359O from hrs own sources. (b) Remand the matter back to Respo ndent No.2 for the Pct; tioner consideration allowine opportl]niw to be heard for (i ) correction of the patently erroneous facts recorded in the Impugned Order and (ii) payment of the compou nding fee in the rnanner prescribed. (c) Pass appropriate directions for correction/ amendment of the Annual Report and the Auditor'L Report. (d) Pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. G t_-,- J

75. Pending disposal of the Respondent No.2 to remove the public access. writ petition, direct the Impugned order from the

76. Pending disposal of the writ petition, direct removal of the Annual Report and Auditor's Report from MCA website'" (EmPhasis SuPPlied)

6. A minute reading of the relief prayed for shows that the writ petitioner prayed for setting aside the compounding order dated

22.08.2023 to the extent it records that the petitioner has paid the compounding fee from his own sources. Consequently, the relief is prayed for to remand the matter back to respondent No'2 for fresh consideration allowing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard for twin purposes mentioned in the prayer clause' lrarned counsel for the writ petitioner by taking this Court to the impugned order urged that without hearing the matter frnally and deciding the legality, validity and propriety of compounding order dated. 22.08.2023, learned Single Judge has passed the interim order which gives consequentia-l relief to the writ petitioner. More than main relief is granted by way of interim relief' Putting it differentty, it is urged that as per the prayer of writ petitioner itself, the matter could have been remalded back to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration after setting aside the order dated

22.O8.2023. Withstanding the said order' the question of remand 4 and correction of error by way of interim order does not arise. Apart from this, it is submitted that the petitioner approached the Writ Court with a pair of unclean hands. Thr:re exists material suppression of fact, because the writ petitioner neither pleaded with accuracl, and precision that he authorized respondent No.6 to represent the petitioner in compounding the matter. The said authorization dated 23.O8.2022 is filed wittr the counter as Annexure R-3. The genuineness of this authonzation letter given by the petitioner was not questioned before the writ Court. There exists material suppression of fact which could not have been ignored. The writ petitioner should have appr.oached the Court with clearr hands, clean mind, clean heart ald clean objective. l,earned Single Judge has not considered the aforesaid aspect. L,earned Senior counsel further submits that apart from suppression ol fact, the writ petitioner approached the Court with delay and such delay has not been explained. The Court has drawn pima facie satisfaction from its previous order dated

07.11.2024 which cannot sustain scrutiny. Thus, for all these counts, the interim order is liable to be interfered with. The writ petition is fixed on LO.O2.2O2S and the appellrrnts are ready to argue the matter fina_lly. q- 5

7. Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.lO submits that he is sailing with the present appellants and the impugned order is'rulnerabie one.

8. karned Senior Counsel for respondent No. I /writ petitioner submits that the learned Singte Judge has passed a detailed order by considering the riva-l contentions. In the last paragraph of the impug:ned order, it was clarified that none of the parties shall use this order in any collateral proceedings involving respondent No.17-Company.

9. The appellants are unable to show how they are aggrieved by the impugned order which directs correction of entry in relation to the writ petitioner only.

10. karned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the Government submits that he will file counter before the Writ Court. 1 1. We have heard the parties at length.

12. During the course of hearing, it is gathered that the only anxiety and grievance of writ petitioner is that the compounding order dated 23.08.2022 passed by showing acceptance of the q- 6 arnount paid on behalf of the petitioner, but, am.ount has not been paid from petitioner's own sources. Instead, ir was paid by one Pratiksha Amblekar on behalf of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner's anxiety is that in view of Section 44 1 (b) of the Companies Act, 2013, such pa5rment ought to have been paid by the writ petitioner and it cannot be by anybody else. Considering the aforesaid anxiet5r, the Court proposed that there can be a quietus to this litigation. If it is agreed that t}le compounding order shall be treated to have been passed on the basis of payment made by the writ petitioner from his ov/n sources and for all practical and future purposes it shall be trezrted as such. The said entry for all practical purposes and for all future proceedings shall be read as such and payment for compounding shall be treated to had been made by the writ petitioner himself.

13. learned counsel for ilte appellants and learned counsel for the Government stated that they have no objection if such an order is passed. Iearned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 did not agree with the said proposition/observation by contending that the corresponding corection should also be made in the annual arrd audit report. A plain reading of Annual Report for Financial Ye'o' 2022-23 shows that compounding fee is treated to A/ 7 be duly paid and the name of the petitioner finds place in the Annual Report. We wonder why the writ petitioner is not agreeing with the proposition which can put quietus to the entire proceedings and takes care of his grievance'

14. We find srrbstance in the argument of learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that for the purpose of dtawing pima facie satisfaction, learned Writ Court has relied on its previous order dated 07.11-2024, which was set aside by the Division Bench. By no stretch of imagination, the said order can form basis for drawtng pima facie case in favour of the writ petitioner'

15.Wealsofindsubstantialforceintheargumentoflearned Senior Counsel for tJle appellants that if the impugned order is examined in jr:xtaposition to the relief claimed in the writ petition' it will be clear that ttre writ petitioner got consequential relief by way of interim order without deciding the validity of the order \ dated 22.O8.2023. ) )

16. So far the argument of Sri Avinash Desai' learned Senior Counsel for respondent No' 1 that the appellants cannot be treated to be 'person aggrieved' is concerned, suffice it to say that when in the previous round without putting the appellants to notice the & 8 order dated OZ.ll.2O24 was passed by learned Single Bench, at the instance of the appellants in W.A.Nos. 1315; and 1317 of 2024 the order dated O7. 1 1.2024 was set aside. Since the order dated 07.1I.2O24 was set aside at the instalce of the appellants by the Division Bench, we are unable to persuade ourselves with the line of argument that appellants cannot be treated to be lerson aggrieved' by the impugned order.

17. Considering the aforesaid fact, the impugned order dated O9.O7.2O25 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. I8. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is d.isposed of, without expressing anty view on the merits. Any ,rbservation made hereinabove shall not be treated as expression of ,riew of this Bench on merits. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sh all stand close //TRUE COPY// SD/.T,KRISHNA UMAR DEPUW RE STR.AR / $ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Secretpyl llinistry of Corporate Affairs Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi, Union of lndia-1 10001

2. The Regional Director, Southeast Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs 3rd l-.loor, corporate Bhawan Near watei Board, Bahdraguoa Trratti Annaram Village, Hayatnagar Nagole, Hyderabad - 5000'68. 3 Jl-"^_1:qitar of .Companies,.-E-Wing, 2nd Ftoor, Kendriya Sadan 4. The sectio.n t)fficer, Posting section, High court for the state of rerangana at t I}#:S::: officer, writ DB section, High court ror the state of relangana at tsangatore-560034, Kamataka. ^oramangata, Hyderabad. -^ c.*l .

6. One CC to SRI TARUN G.REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI VADEENDRA JOSHI, Advocate [OPUC] B. One CC to SRI A.VENKATESH, Sr. COUNSEL' Advocate TOPUCI 9. One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUIUAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GE-NERIAL " 5i:jr"liojn, n]sil c;;,1 f"t th; st;i";f ietjhsana at Hvderabad [oPUc]

10.Two CD CoPies BSR/BSK ?$4!. HIGH COUR'I- DATED: 3010112025 JUDGMENT WA.No.118 of 2025 H6 rAT€ \ la. t i rs r'rlq 2[25 t DE s.,.' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL, WITHOUT COSTS Pra!. r+\"1"{