National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
Dr. Shobha Fakkirappa Sunagar vs Balaji Neurocare Health Services ... on 4 November, 2024
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AT CHENNAI
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.70/2024
(IA No.1055, 1056/2024)
In the matter of:
Dr. Shobha Fakkirappa Sungar
Aged about 51 years,
House No. 63, 1st main, 3rd Cross,
Shirur Park, 1st stage,
Hubli - 580 031. ...Appellant
V
Balaji Neurocare Health Services Pvt. Ltd
A private limited company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956,
Having its registered office at:
CTD No. 20792, 20793, 20793/ 1 +2/ A.
Ward No. 43,
Hosur - Unkal By-pass Road,
Vidyanagar,
Hubli, Dharwad - 580 021 ... 1st Respondent
Dr. Kranthi Kiran Siddappa
S / o. Siddappa, Aged about 55 years,
Residing at
Shri Balaji Institute of
Neuro Sciences and Trauma,
Hosur-Unkal By-pass Road,
Vidyanagar, Hubli-580021 ... 2nd Respondent
Mr. Shashank K,
S/o. Kranti Kiran,
Aged about 26 years,
Residing at:
House No. 63, 1 st Main 3rc Cross
1st stage, Shirur Park,
Hubli - 580 031,
Dharwad ... 3rd Respondent
Comp. App. (AT) (CH) No. 70/2024 Page 1 of 4
Present :
For Appellant : Mr. S. Vivekananda, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Chandramouli Prabhakar, Advocate
Ms. R. Vandhana Prabhu, &
Mr. Aakash Athimoolm, Advocate for R1-R2
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 04.11.2024:
A very pathetic situation, arising out of the conduct of the counsels, came into light during the course of arguments of the instant Appeal, where the challenge has been given to the Impugned Judgment of 08.08.2024, as it has been rendered by the NCLT Bangalore Bench, in Company Petition No.53/BB/2021 in the matters of Dr. Shobha Fakkirappa Sungar Vs Balaji Neurocare Health Services Pvt Ltd & Anr. The consequential effect of the said impugned order has been that at the stage, of considering the various pending Interlocutory Applications, the Learned Tribunal has proceeded to dismiss the Company Petition itself as withdrawn, with a liberty reserved for the appellant to file a fresh petition, admittedly, at the stage when the counsel on record for the appellant could not attend the proceedings due to his mother's ailment and consequential hospitalization, and the representing counsel in brief of the counsel on record, had made a request that she would be filing her vakalat to appear on behalf of the petitioner, and had prayed for time to file her vakalat on behalf of the appellant.
Comp. App. (AT) (CH) No. 70/2024 Page 2 of 4
It is not in dispute that, when the company petition was taken up on 08.08.2024, the mother of the counsel on record was ailing and she was hospitalized and he was attending to her and hence he could not attend the proceedings thus for the aforesaid reason of to argue the petition. Given this, the counsel for respondent should not have pressed upon to appear and argue the Petition as a matter of ethics, and that too, merely on the grounds that the Company petition has been pending for quite a long time. Apart from it, the Learned NCLT should have taken care to note, that in the absence of the counsel who is on record, and in the event of denial of opportunity to the representing connected to file vakalat for the Appellant, the Petitioner/Appellant herein remained unrepresented on 08.08.2024 when Company Petition, was permitted to be dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to file a fresh petition. The aforesaid fact is not disputed by the respondent's counsel, who represents Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2.
A litigant is not to be made to suffer on account of, a counsel's mistake. In the instant case, there in, or none and even then, proceeding to dismiss the Company Petition as withdrawn, in the absence of counsel on record is something that is not heard of. In order to, avoid any misunderstanding amongst the fraternity of advocates, the Impugned Judgment is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the learned National Comp. App. (AT) (CH) No. 70/2024 Page 3 of 4 Company Law Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, with the request that, the counsel appearing for the appellant, who takes notice of the pendency of the Company Petition, would provide all cooperation to the learned NCLT to decide the aforesaid Company Petition No. 53/BB/2021, and all pending interlocutory applications on merits, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 1 month from the date of production of the certified copy of this Judgment, subject to the aforesaid the Appeal would stand allowed.
[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial) [Jatindranath Swain] Member (Technical) GL/TM/MS Comp. App. (AT) (CH) No. 70/2024 Page 4 of 4