Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior counsel appears for Sri
Tarun G. Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri Avinash
learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri A. Venkatesh, learned
2. With the consent, finally heard.
3. This intra-Court Appeal takes exception to the order passed
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that this
is second visit of the appellants to this Court. Earlier the Writ
and 15 in the writ petition. Aggrieved, W.A.Nos.1315 and 1317 of
put to notice. The Division Bench by order dated 22.11.2024 set
hearing. Thereafter, the writ petition came-up for hearing. On the
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner submits that
(d) Pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case.
75. Pending disposal of the writ petition, direct the
Respondent No.2 to remove the Impugned order from the
public access.
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. Learned
counsel for the writ petitioner by taking this Court to the
impugned order urged that without hearing the matter finally and
deciding the legality, validity and propriety of compounding order
dated 22.08.2023, learned Single Judge has passed the interim
order which gives consequential relief to the writ petitioner. More
than main relief is granted by way of interim relief. Putting it
differently, it is urged that as per the prayer of writ petitioner
itself, the matter could have been remanded back to respondent
No.2 for fresh consideration after setting aside the order dated
22.08.2023. Withstanding the said order, the question of remand
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. There exists material
suppression of fact, because the writ petitioner neither pleaded
with accuracy and precision that he authorized respondent No.6
to represent the petitioner in compounding the matter. The said
authorization dated 23.08.2022 is filed with the counter as
Annexure R-3. The genuineness of this authorization 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 approached the Court
with clean hands, clean mind, clean heart and clean objective.
Learned Single Judge has not considered the aforesaid aspect.
Learned Senior counsel further submits that apart from
suppression of fact, the writ petitioner approached the Court with
delay and such delay has not been explained. The Court has
drawn prima 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 10.02.2025 and the appellants are ready to
argue the matter finally.
7. Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel for respondent
No.10 submits that he is sailing with the present appellants and
the impugned order is vulnerable one.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner
submits that the learned Single Judge has passed a detailed order
by considering the rival contentions. In the last paragraph of the
impugned 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. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the
Government submits that he will file counter before the Writ
Court.
11. 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
amount paid on behalf of the petitioner, but, amount has not been
paid from petitioner's own sources. Instead, it was paid by one
Pratiksha Amblekar on behalf of the writ petitioner. The writ
petitioner's anxiety is that in view of Section 441 (b) of the
Companies Act, 2013, such payment ought to have been paid by
the writ petitioner and it cannot be by anybody else. Considering
the aforesaid anxiety, the Court proposed that there can be a
quietus to this litigation. If it is agreed that the compounding
order shall be treated to have been passed on the basis of
payment made by the writ petitioner from his own sources and for
all practical and future purposes it shall be treated 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 the appellants and learned counsel for
the Government stated that they have no objection if such an
order is passed. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 did
not agree with the said proposition/observation by contending
that the corresponding correction should also be made in the
annual and audit report. A plain reading of Annual Report for
Financial Year 2022-23 shows that compounding fee is treated to
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 substance in the argument of learned Senior
Counsel for the appellants that for the purpose of drawing prima
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 drawing prima facie case in favour of the writ petitioner.
15. We also find substantial force in the argument of learned
Senior Counsel for the appellants that if the impugned order is
examined in juxtaposition to the relief claimed in the writ petition,
it will be clear that the writ petitioner got consequential relief by
way of interim order without deciding the validity of the order
dated 22.08.2023.
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
order dated 07.11.2024 was passed by learned Single Bench, at
the instance of the appellants in W.A.Nos.1315 and 1317 of 2024
the order dated 07.11.2024 was set aside. Since the order dated
07.11.2024 was set aside at the instance 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 'person
aggrieved' by the impugned order.
17. Considering the aforesaid fact, the impugned order dated
09.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside.
18. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of, without
expressing any view on the merits. Any observation made
hereinabove shall not be treated as expression of view of this
Bench on merits. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
__________________________
RENUKA YARA, J
30.01.2025
Nvl
