Ankur Healthcare (Ongole) Private ... vs Dr. Noel John Kappala

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 65/2026 (IA Nos. 900 & 901/2026) In the matter of: Ankur Healthcare (Ongole) Private Limited No. 55, (Old No. 422), 20th Main, 1st Block, Service Road, West of Chord Road, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru - 560 010, Represented by its Director, Dr. Satya Srini Vasan ... APPELLANT NO. 1

Ankur Healthcare Private Limited Majority shareholder in Ankur Healthcare (Ongole) Private Limited, No. 55, (Old No. 422), 20th Main, 1st Block, Service Road, West of Chord Road, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru - 560 010, Represented by its Director, Ms. Radha Radhakrishnan ... APPELLANT NO. 2

Dr. Satya Srini Vasan No 1655/56, 9th Main, A Block, Rajajinagar, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru -560 010 ... APPELLANT NO. 3

V

Dr. Noel John Kappala Cloughpet, Ongole, Andhra Pradesh -523 001 ... RESPONDENT

Present : For Appellants : Mr. Ramasubramaniam Raja, Advocate

Comp App (AT) (CH) No. 65/2026 Page 1 of 4 ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

02.07.2026:

Oral: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)

We are carving out an exception in this company appeal, so as to meet the

ends of justice. In the instant Appeal, the Appellant challenges the impugned order

of 26.03.2026, that was passed by Ld. NCLT, Bangalore Bench, while considering

the application, being I.A. No.191/2025, preferred by the Appellant wherein he

prayed for the pen drive containing records of the Board meetings, to be placed

on record in the shape of additional documents, to be considered in the

proceedings of CP No.66/BB/2021, being carried before the Ld. Tribunal under

the provisions contained under Section 271 & 272 of the Companies Act, 2013.

2. By virtue of the impugned order, the Ld. Tribunal has declined to accept the

pen drive, which was furnished by the Appellant by way of I.A. No.191/2025, on

the ground that, the said pen drive has not been accompanied by the transcription

of the voice recordings and therefore the application is not maintainable.

3. In order to answer the observation that has been made by the Ld. Tribunal,

the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that, in response thereto, subsequently,

the Appellant has supplied the transcription of the voice recordings by filing a

memorandum, as it was observed by the Ld. Tribunal in the impugned order, and

that was in fact on record, but what bearing it would have, has not been considered

or observed in the impugned order. Hence, the Appellant seeks that, in fact, the

Comp App (AT) (CH) No. 65/2026 Page 2 of 4 reason, which has been observed in the impugned order for declining to take the

application I.A. No.191/2025, is not sustainable and contrary to the records itself,

against the interest of justice as it deprives a party to lead evidence to substantiate

his case.

4. Being conscious of the fact that, we are deciding this company appeal at this

admission stage, the nature of I.A. No.191/2025, would take the shape of an

interlocutory application that would be treated to have been preferred under Rule

40 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which confers enough powers on the Tribunals to

permit furnishing of documents and to call upon the party to the proceedings to

furnish such documents, as it would be necessary, for the purposes to effectively

adjudicate the proceedings. If we consider the language used under Rule 40 of the

NCLT Rules, 2016, it is the prerogative of the Bench, which may call upon the

party to submit additional evidence when it feels that additional evidence is

required to be produced. Since, we are in an appellate forum, in continuation to the

proceedings as held by the Ld. Tribunal, while exercising our derived powers under

Rule 40 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, we feel that the purpose would be served if the

transcription, which has been supplied by the Appellant in the shape of a

memorandum is permitted to be read to satisfy the conditions of supplying of the

transcription, as well as the spoken words, as it would have been required to be

submitted by the Appellant along with I.A. No.191/2025.

Comp App (AT) (CH) No. 65/2026 Page 3 of 4

5. In that eventuality, while disposing of this company appeal, we observe that,

the application I.A. No.191/2025, will not be rejected, merely on the ground that

the transcription has not been supplied by the Appellant as observed in the

impugned order and rather to the contrary, the transcription supplied by the

Appellant in the shape of a memorandum, would be treated as to be a transcription

filed in support of I.A. No.191/2025, and the additional document thus filed would

be taken on record and would be considered on its own merit after providing an

opportunity to the other side to controvert the same, when the proceeding of the

company petition itself is considered on its merits.

6. Subject to the above the company appeal stands 'disposed of'.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Jatindranath Swain] Member (Technical)

AR/MS/AK

Comp App (AT) (CH) No. 65/2026 Page 4 of 4