Disposed

Anandram Sarda and Associates v. Union of India

Telangana HC3 Mar 2025WA/139/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An auditor challenged orders relegating its writ petitions against Section 140 company-law directions to the NCLT under the NCLT Rules. The Division Bench held the appellant had suppressed the existence of the statutory remedy, upheld the Single Judge's orders, and directed NCLT to decide any applications on merits without dismissing them for delay.

What the court decided

AI extract

Anandram Sarda and Associates Vs Union of India — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

134461

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD #. -..^{; .} IVONDAY,THE THIRD DAY oF I\4ARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶5

WRIT APPEAL NOS: 122 129 AND 139 0F 2025

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO.122 OF 2025

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the Order dated 2911112024 passed in W. P. No. 4O53O of 2O22. on the fite of the High Court.

¶8

i' Between:

¶9

Anandram Sarda and Associates, Chartered Accountants, proprietor, Anandram Sarda S/o Shri Ramnarayan Sarda Age, 44 years, Occ. Professional, Having its office at ZO2-8, 2nd Flooi, Hiohness Maurva. 8-2-601|P,7810, Road No. 10, Banjara Hitls, Hyderabad, Tpla"ngana-34.

¶10

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

'1. Union of lndia, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi.

¶13

Regiskar of Companies, Telangana, Represented by its Registrar, 2 Floor, Corporate Bhavan, GSI Post, Nagole, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad-500 06g.

¶14

Regional Director (Southern Eastern Region), N/inistry of Corporate Affairs, 3rd Floor, Corporate Bhavan, GSI Post, Nagole, Bandlaguda: Hyderabad-SO0 068.

¶15

4 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

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

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 k

lA NO: 2^{oF 2025}

Petition under^{sectionl5l CPC praying that in the circumst:lnces statedin} rh" ,r;"j'i#1'6;"i;;;d^{or the peiitio;'ihe Hish court mavbe preasedto} susoendtheopera'.ionottnenesolutiondatedlg-1o-202llpassedbytheGeneral ;".i"";;il; iltirno"nt^{t.'to + company and other consequentialsteps takenin} ilJ#;""i^{ii"'i.,p,g""0 order'pendingdisposal of main writ aprreal}

¶23

lA NO:^{3oF 2025}

¶24

Petition^{und':r Section151CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit^{filed rn support of the peiitio;'ine Uigt'^ Crrurtmaybe pleasedto} :r#il"i^;^{;;;)r'rtion of t-n" o'a"i vide Ref No le(7:l)RD (sER) /sec140/} i[iiiioi,)izoizl3830^{dated 12'10'2022'on the file of the resional Direclor i e '} ;;;;";l N. 3^{p3nding disposalof mainwrit appeal}

¶25

WRIT APPEAL^{NC,: 129 OF 2025}

¶26

Writ Aooeal under^{clause 15 of the Letters Patentpreferre'Jagainst the order-dated} ;u;;i\;^;;;;,0^{i" w p No 40531of 2022 and pass. on the fiteor the Hish} i'^court.

¶27

Between:

¶28

Anandram^{Sarda and Associates' Chartered. Accounta'lts'Proprietor'} SriJJ st"^{Shii- RamnaravanSarda Aoe 44 Years' occ'} il;#;; professiona, Having ]r."oiii""'li^{+iOb-A, Z"a Flooi, Hiqhness} ^lvlaurya, bll-Ooili;^{lbro, noiOr''ro. 10, Banjara Hills, HvderabadlTelangana-34'}

¶29

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶30

AND

¶31

1 Union of^{lrrcia, Represented by its Principal Secretary, lt/inistn/ of corporate} Affairs, Nelt^Delhi

¶32

2 Reoistrar'rf Companies,^{Telangana'Represenled bv.its Registrar'} -2 ^F^loor ' a;:il;i"'i;';,[,^{o5i po't,Niasole,BbndlasudaHvderaba'l-500068}

¶33

3 Reoional i.r".iii;;;, a"rbraie^{Director(Southern Eastern Bhavan, GSI Post, -Nasole' Region)' Ministry.of Corporate Bandlaguda' Hvderabad-s00Aifailsr^^} 068.

¶34

4 Ir.,4/s. Cell^{Pl.rnetPrivate Limited, Represented by its DirectorHaving its office} ;;'il il^{'t-it-isttlrc/e,Javalakshmi Towers,l'4otilalNehrulJagar,} 6Lgump"t^{Hyderabad,Telangana- 500016}

¶35

...RESPONDENTS

¶36

IANO:1O^{F 2025}

¶37

Petition^{unrlerSection 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit^{filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court mavbe pleasedto} iuspiNo ir,"^{operationof the order vide Ref No. 19(74)RD(sER)/sec.140/} iAel^{qoasstzoz2l3826dated12.10.2022, on the file of the Regional Directori.e'} Respondent No^{3, pendingdisposal of main writ appeal}

¶38

¶39

lA NO: 2 OF 202s

¶40

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^statedin the affidavitjlled itqupBgrt^{of the pptition, the High Court maybe pleasedto} SUSPENO{llb operati6n^{of the Orderdated 29.'11.2024 passed in W.P. No. 40531} of 2024,^pending disposal^{of main writ appeal}

¶41

lA NO: 3 OF 2025

¶42

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumslances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High Court maybe pleasedto} suspend the operation^{of the Resolutiondated19-'10-2022 passed by the General} Body of the Respondent^{No. 4 Company and other consequential stepstaken in} pursuance of the impugned order,^pending disposal^{of main writ appeal}

¶43

WRlT APPEAL NO:^{139OF 2025}

¶44

Writ Appeal under^{clause15 of the Letters PatentWrit preferred againstthe Order} Daled.29l11l2}24^{in Wp. No. 40537 of 2025and pass on the file of the High Court.}

¶45

Between:

¶46

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.}

¶47

¶48

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶49

AND

¶50

1 Union of lndia, Represented by^{its Principal Secretary,tvlinistryof Corporate} Affairs, New Delhi.

¶51

2 Registrar oI Companies, Telangana, Represented^{by its Registrar, 2 Floor,} Coiporate Bhavan, GSI Post,^{Nagole, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad-s00068.}

¶52

3 Regional Director^(Southern Eastern Region),^Ministry of^{Corporate Affairs.} 3rd Floor, Corporate Bhavan, GSI^{Post,Nagole, Bandlaguda,Hyderabad-S0O} 068.

¶53

4 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

¶54

...RESPONDENTS

¶55

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶56

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the High Court maybe pleasedto}

¶57

¶58

suspend^{the operation of the Resolution dated 19-10-2022passedby the General} Body of^{the Resp,tndentNo.4 Companyand otherconsequentialsteps takenit} pursuance of the^{irnpugnedorder, pendingdisposal of main writ appeal}

¶59

IA No,t#.,ozs

¶60

¶61

petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filec in support of the petition, the High courtmaybe pleasedbe} pleased to suspenl^{the operation of the order vide Ref No 19(72) RD (SER) /Sec} iaOl teAAgSS^{I 7;n22t3824dated 13/10/2022, on the file: of the rr:gional Director} i-e., respondent^{Nc,.3pendingdisposal of mainwrit appea}

¶62

IAN O:3^{OF 2025}

¶63

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 pleasedto} suspend^{the operation of the order dated2911112024 passed in W P No. 40537 of} 2025,^{pending dist,osalof main writ appeal}

¶64

Counsel^{for the Appellant:SRl. P INDRA PRAKASH}

¶65

(rN ALL THE WRII^PETITIONS)

¶66

Counsel^{for the Rr-'spondentNo.1: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REP., FORSRI GADI} PRAVEEN^{KUMAFI DY. SOLICITOR} i

¶67

(tN ALL THE WRIT^{PETITIONS)GEN.OF INDIA}

¶68

Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos.2&3:} --

¶69

Counsel for^{the R,espondentNo.4: SRI S. RAVI SR. COUNSEL REP., FOR M/S} (tN ALL THE WR|TPETITIONS)^{R.SASSOCIATES}

¶70

The Court made^{the following:COMMON JUDGMENT}

¶71

¶72

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL ..'+'"' s .- AND

¶73

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE REI{UI{A YARA

¶74

WRIT APPEAL Nos.l22 129 and 139 of2025

¶75

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Paul)

¶76

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.

¶77

Heard on admission.

¶78

¶79

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

¶80

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

avail the '9 .1^{rernedy before the. Nationa_l CompanyLaw Tribunal} (hereinafter rr:ferred to as, 'NCLTJ.

¶85

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.

¶86

¶87

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}

\ \

7 . The - parties have confined their arguments to the extent .d'' { -r indicated above and no other point is pressed.

¶95

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.

¶96

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

¶97

:, (1998) 8 SCC 1

¶98

¶99

¶100

consider.qd'by thq Supreme Court in U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd.

¶101

v. R.S. Pandey and Another3 ald it was opinecl as under:-

¶102

" ,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 . . . ."

¶103

The Supreme Court in its recent judgment dated 1O.O4.2024

¶104

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 entertained a Writ Petition despite availabitity r of a-lternative 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:

¶105

" 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

¶106

'^{(2005)8 scc 264}

¶107

4 (2024) 4 s.c.R. 541

t l

tlrlor:,^ythiJe _dealing.^{with ttepetitions} inuotuing te chattenge to tLrc action takenfor reLouiry i1 tie puOtic ?":t: "!.,^{the High Court mistt 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 tLtem.selues inasmuch as theg not oitg^-"ntofn 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 Court under Article 2 _26 -of the'Coitituionon 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 thoughthe rute of} exnaustnn oJ altemattue -remedg ,, o rule g2f d:s!reEpa__qnd__n"l_e"e of ""^;bion.- "tti' tt i" i' court d.ifficutt to fathom "ng r"o.;;ihgi;uig 226 of shoutd tlv entertqin Constitution.a peuaon JitZ ""iii';;;i

¶112

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶113

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.

¶114

¶115

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 relegatedto avail} the said remedy, *.: appellant a-lone must be blamed for the same. If the appellant

¶116

¶117

¶118

would have apprised^{the Court at the time of admission itself that} there exists ar^{alternativeremedy,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 appellantto highlight the} grievance abotLt the same.

¶119

In the interest^{of justice,while upholdingthe orrlersof the} learned Single^{Judge,we deem itproper to observe that if the} appellant files^{such applications before NCLT zrs observedby the} learned Singk: Judge^{within three weeksfrou todal', the said} applications be^{decidedon merits and shallnot be dismi3Sed on} the ground of^CelaY.

¶120

¶121

t4 Accordingly, the writ^{appeals are disPosed of No order as to}

¶122

costs.

¶123

Miscella:-reous petitions^{pgndinq,if any, strall stand closed'}

¶124

SD/. T. KRISHNA KUMAR DEPUTY ".v" AR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Princ^p.al Secretary,^{t\4inistryof CorporateAffairsi, New Delhi}

¶130

2 Thc Reoistrar. Reoistrar of Companies,^{Telangana, 2 Floor, Corporate} ghirrnl i;li iostiNagote, Bandlaguda' Hvderabad-500⁰⁶⁸

¶131

3 The Reoional Director^{(Southern Eastern Region),Ivlinistry of Corporate} nti"il.. iiJ Fi*i,-corpbrrt"^{Bhavan, GSI Poat,Nagole, Bandlaguda'} Hyderabad.500^068.

¶132

¶133

¶134