www.taxguru.in NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI (Appellate Jurisdiction) Company Appeal (AT)(CH) No.14 of 2021 & I.A. No.125 of 2021 and I.A.No.126 of 2021 (Under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013) (Applications filed under Rule 11 R/W Rule 31 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 to List the Application for Setting aside and to vacate the Interim Order dated 05.05.2021 passed in C.P. No. 667/241/HDB/2018 by the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal, Amaravati Bench) In the matter of : 1. Chalasani Udaya Sankar S/o. Mr. Subba Rao Address: D.No. 32-14-11, 2nd Floor, Tulasi Apartments, Near Jammichettu, Mogalrajapuram, Vijayawada – 520010. …Appellant No.1 2. Ms. Sripathi Sreevana Reddy W/o. Mr. Venkata Krishna Reddy Pingali Address: D.No. 52-1/8-10A/1, Road No.2, NTR Colony, Gunadala, Vijayawada – 520008. …Appellant No.2 3. Ms. Yalamanchilli Manjusha W/o. Mr. Balaji Address: Plot No.3, Road No. 10B, Opposite Vinayak Theatre, Bharathi Nagar, Vijayawada – 520008. …Appellant No.3 V 1. M/s. Lexus Technologies Pvt. Ltd. CIN: U72200AP2000PTC034070 D. No. 60-3-1/4, Y.K. Building, Route No.5, 1 Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.14 of 2021 www.taxguru.in www.taxguru.in Ramanachandra Nagar, Vijayawada, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh – 520008. …Respondent No.1 2. Mr. MantenaNarasa Raju S/o. Mr. Krishnama Raju NRI Medical College, Chinakakani, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh – 522503. …Respondent No.2 3. Mr. Appa Rao Mukkamala S/o. Mr. Bhaskar Rao i) 4545, Warwick Circle, Grand Blanc, Michigan – 48439. ii) NRI Medical College, Chinakakani, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh 522503. …Respondent No.3 4. Mr. Suresh Anne S/o. Mr. Hanumantha Rao i) 444, Wimbleton Drive, Birmingham, Michigan – 48009 US. iii) NRI Medical College, Chinakakani, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh 522503. …Respondent No.4 5. Mr. V Vasudev Reddy Partner, Rameshwar Rao & Co. Chartered Accountants #132, SBI Colony, II Venture, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad – 500080. …Respondent No.5 6. Registrar of Companies 2nd Floor, Corporate Bhawan, GSI Post, Tattiannaram, Nagole, Bandiaguda, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500068. …Respondent No.6 7. The Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, 3rd Floor, Corporate Bhawan, Bandlaguda, Nagole, Tattiannaram, Hayath Nagar Mandal, RR District, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500068. …Respondent No.7 8. Mr. NimmagaddaUpendranath 1-5-13, NRI Staff Quarters, NRI Academy of Sciences, 2 Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.14 of 2021 www.taxguru.in www.taxguru.in Chinakakani, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. …Respondent No.8 9. Dr. Raghava Rao Polavarapu 5 Olde Hamlet Drive, Jerichho, New York, 11753, USA. …Respondent No.9 10. Dr. Sai Ramesh Bikkina 4539, Long View Drive, Lapeer, Michigan 48446, USA. …Respondent No.10 I.A. No.125 of 2021 and I.A.No.126 of 2021 1. Mr. MantenaNarasa Raju S/o. Mr. Krishnama Raju NRI Medical College, Chinakakani, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh – 522503. …Applicant/Respondent No.2 V 1.Chalasani Udaya Sankar …Respondents/Appellants S/o. Mr. Subba Rao D.No. 32-14-11, 2nd Floor, Tulasi Apartments, Near Jammichettu, Mogalrajapuram, Vijayawada – 520010. 2.Ms. Sripathi Sreevana Reddy W/o. Mr. Venkata Krishna Reddy Pingali, D.No. 52-1/8-10 A/ 1, Road No.2, NTR Colony, Gunadala, Vijayawada – 520008. 3. Ms. Yalamanchilli Manjusha W/o. Mr. Balaji Plot No.3, Road No. 10B, Opposite Vinayak Theatre, Bharathi Nagar, Vijayawada – 520008. 3 Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.14 of 2021 www.taxguru.in www.taxguru.in Present: For Appellants : Mr. P. B. A. Srinivasan, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 : Mr. A. L Somayaji, Senior Advocate For Mrs. Harshini Jothiraman, Advocate JUDGMENT (VIRTUAL MODE) Venugopal M (J) 1. The Appellants have projected the present ‘Appeal’ as aggrieved persons in respect of the ‘Order’ dated 22.04.2021 in CP No.667/241/HDB/2018 passed by the ‘National Company Law Tribunal, Amaravati Bench’. 2. According to the Learned Counsel for the ‘Appellants’ the ‘Tribunal’ should have taken into account the fact that the Arguing Learned Counsel is above 50 years and is already going to medical treatment. In fact, the ‘Tribunal’ should have been ‘accommodative’ instead of making skewed remarks in an unparliamentary language against the ‘Appellants’ and instructing them to make an alternate arrangement. 3. The Learned Counsel for the ‘Appellants’ submits that the ‘Tribunal’ was not correct in passing the ‘Impugned Order’ and in fact, had applied all possible ‘assumptions’ and unparliamentary language against the ‘Appellants’ ignoring the necessities and consideration of the matter at hand. 4. It is represented on behalf of the ‘Appellants’ that the ‘Tribunal’ had ignored the conduct of the ‘Respondents’ who were filing number of ‘interlocutory Applications’ since the case was filed, but had not made attempt to file counter to the 4 Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.14 of 2021 www.taxguru.in www.taxguru.in main Petition till March 2021 and put all the blame on the ‘Appellants’. 5. The Learned Counsel for the ‘Appellants’ proceeds to points out that the conduct of the ‘Tribunal’ in directing the ‘Appellants’ to complete the ‘Arguments’ and instruct them to make alternate arrangements in case, the arguing Learned Counsel is ‘unwell’ is ‘inappropriate’ and unacceptable one. 6. The Learned Counsel for the ‘Appellants’ contends that the language employed in the ‘Impugned Order’ of the ‘Tribunal’ is not only ‘harsh’ but also ‘unparliamentary’ and full of prejudices against the ‘Appellants’. Also, that the ‘Tribunal’ was not correct in ignoring the ‘COVID’ situation which prevailed in the National Capital Delhi. 7. The Learned Counsel for the ‘Appellants’ submits that since the ‘Impugned Order’ causes prejudice to the ‘Appellants’, the same needs to be set aside in the interest of justice. 8. It is to be pointed out that the ‘Lockdown’ period during COVID is an extraordinary situation. Furthermore, this ‘Appellate Tribunal’ is of the considered opinion that in every ‘order’ passed by the ‘Tribunal’ ‘sobriety’, ‘calm composure’, ‘poise’ cool like ‘cucumber’ attitude and ‘functional humbleness’ is to be noticed in every action and expression of a ‘Member’ of the ‘Tribunal’. It cannot be gain said that an approach of ‘Judicial Restraint’ and ‘Discipline’ are very much required for the dispensation of justice in our justice delivery system. As a matter of fact, harsh or vituperative or disparaging or scandalous remarks are not to be employed in an 5 Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.14 of 2021 www.taxguru.in www.taxguru.in ‘Order’/‘Judgment’ against the concerned persons (including the Learned Counsel(s) appearing for the Parties) because of the fact that the unwanted/unwarranted remarks will certainly have a wider repercussions and ramifications, tending to prejudice their avocation, in pursuit of their career. It is to be remembered that no ‘Homo-sapien’ is free from follies and foibles. 9. No wonder, the observations made in an ‘Impugned Order’ which are unnecessary/there being no impelling necessity to justify the conclusion, to be arrived at by a ‘Tribunal’, even based on the ‘arguments’ advanced by the Learned Counsel for the ‘party’, the same needs to be expunged, because of the fact that they are unpalatable and especially, not in conformity with the well laid down principles of Law. 10. In the instant case on hand, it transpires that the ‘Tribunal’ (National Company Law Tribunal, Amaravati Bench) on 26.04.2021 had recorded in its order that it heard the ‘Arguments’ of both sides at full length and ‘reserved the Orders’. Before this ‘Tribunal’, on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 it is submitted that the ‘Appellants’ had filed their Written Submissions on 03.05.2021 and 05.05.2021 before the ‘Tribunal’ (National Company Law Tribunal, Amaravati Bench). As a matter of fact, the ‘instant Company Appeal (AT) 14 of 2021 on the file of this ‘Tribunal’ was filed on 28.04.2021 after the ‘arguments’ of the Appellant Counsel was heard by the ‘Tribunal’ on 26.04.2021. 11. Be that as it may, this ‘Tribunal’ on going through the ‘Impugned Order’ 6 Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.14 of 2021 www.taxguru.in www.taxguru.in dated 22.04.2021 passed by the ‘Tribunal’ (National Company Law Tribunal, Amaravati Bench) in CP No.667/241/HDB/2018 is of the considered view that the unsavoury observations/comments made by the ‘Tribunal’ commencing from ………. “It is also a fact that right from the beginning ever since this Judicial Member had taken over Amaravati Bench, on one pretext of the other, Petitioners have been trying to drag the matter and have been successfully dragged the matter for over 10 months. …………………….. …….. and ending with “It is important that having spent several Judicial Hours on this case, granting 3 weeks’ time is certainly unjustifiable.” are not warranted and besides the same being not a justiciable one. Viewed in that perspective, this ‘Appellate Tribunal’ sets aside the said observations/comments made in the ‘Impugned Order’, keeping in tune with the conformity of well settled principles of Law. Resultantly, the ‘Appeal’ succeeds. In fine, the ‘Company Appeal’ (AT) (CH) No.14 of 2021 is allowed in above terms. No costs. The ‘Interim Order’ dated 05.05.2021 passed by this ‘Tribunal’ in the instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.14 of 2021 shall stand vacated. All the connected pending ‘interlocutory Applications’ in the ‘instant Appeal’ are closed. [Justice Venugopal M] Member (Judicial) [V. P. Singh] Member (Technical) 13.07.2021 SE 7 Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.14 of 2021 www.taxguru.in.