Dr.Gurubasappa Siddesh & Ors vs Sigma Life Care (Mysore) Private ...

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 164 / 2025 (IA No. 1779 / 2025) In the matter of: Dr. Gurubasappa Siddesh, Aged about 67 years, S/o. Late Govinakovi Hosalli Gurubasappa Residing at `Guru Om', No. 897, Kanthraj Urs Road, Lakshmipuram, Mysore - 570004 .... Appellant No. 1

Mrs. Dr. Anjali Siddesh, Aged about 62 years, W/o. Dr. G. Siddesh, Residing at `Guru Om', No. 897, Kanthraj Urs Road, Lakshmipuram, Mysore - 570004 .... Appellant No. 2

V

Sigma Life Care (Mysore) Private Limited CIN : U85110KA2012PTC064265 A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, Having its registered Office at No. P/8-D, Kamakshi Hospital Road, Saraswathipuram, T K Layout, Chamarajamohalla, Mysore - 570009 .... Respondent No.1

Mr. Shivakumaraswamy Gnanashankar, Managing Director, M/s. Sigma Life Care (Mysore) Private Limited Aged about 67 years, Residing at No. 949 / B, IInd Main, Lakshmipuram, Mysore - 570004 .... Respondent No.2

Mrs. Rajeshwari Kavadichanda Madappa, Aged about 59 years, W/o. K.G. Madappa, Residing at : No. 2995, Hightension Double Road, Vijaynagar 2nd Stage, Mysore - 570004 .... Respondent No.3

Comp App (AT) (CH) No.164/2025 Page 1 of 6 Mr. Kavadichanda Muthappa Madappa, S/o. Late Sri. K.G. Muthappa, Aged about 64 years, Residing at : No. 2995, Hightension Double Road, Vijaynagar 2nd Stage, Mysore - 570004 .... Respondent No.4

Mrs. Shylashankar, Aged 60 years, W/o. S. Gnanashankar, Residing at: No. 949 / B, IInd Main, Lakshmipuram, Mysore - 570004 .... Respondent No.5 Present : For Appellants : Mr. A. Murali & Mr. KM. Vishakh Nag, Advocates For Respondents : Mr. Harish Narasappa, Senior Advocate For Advocates Saurav Sunil & Joel Jacob ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 06.01.2026:

Oral Judgment : Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial):

The Appellant who happens to be the Petitioner in the Company Petition

No. 125 / BB / 2025, challenges the impugned order of 25.09.2025, as it was

passed in the aforesaid Company Petition, whereby, the interim relief as sought

in the Company Petition was declined to be granted in view of the findings, which

has been recorded by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order.

Simultaneously, by the same order, the Ld. Tribunal took cognizance to the

proceedings in the Company Petition and had recorded that the reply / objections

to the Company Petition may be filed, within two weeks by the Respondents.

Comp App (AT) (CH) No.164/2025 Page 2 of 6

2. The question would be, that as to whether, there could be a partial challenge

to the order, which has got twin fold implications with regards to the proceedings

of the Company Petition. In the first instance, it denied grant of any interim order

to the Appellant. Simultaneously, it granted time to the Respondents to file

Counter, which means that the Company Petition has been entertained and can be

said to be favour of the Appellant.

3. For the time being, we are deferring to record any finding on the said issue

as to what will be the impact of giving challenge to the part of order granting time

to file reply / call for counter on the Company Petition.

4. The impugned order itself displays the fact that, the Appellant had earlier

invoked the civil proceedings before the regular Civil Court by filing a Suit being

O.S. No. 974 / 2025, in which there was an earlier interim injunction granted

under Order XXXIX Rule (1) & (2) of the C.P.C. on 15.06.2025 which was later

on vacated by the Ld. Trial Court in the exercise of powers under Order XXXIX

Rule 4 of C.P.C. by an order passed on 15.09.2025.

5. It is seen that contradictory statements have been made during the

proceedings of this Company Appeal by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. First,

he states that, the Suit has been withdrawn, the suit has been withdrawn, which

has been strongly refuted by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent contending

thereof that, in fact, the suit has not been withdrawn and it is still pending

Comp App (AT) (CH) No.164/2025 Page 3 of 6 consideration and his application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. is pending

consideration.

6. In that eventuality, it would be deemed that the subject matter of the

Company Petition is yet to be taken up in the Civil Court proceedings. However,

this aspect may not have any bearing as far as the issue pertaining to the challenge

given to the impugned order is concerned.

7. Primarily, the Interim Relief, sought by the Appellant in the Company

Petition, was that the Respondents be restrained from (i) removing the Appellant

from the Directorship of the Company and (ii) from terminating his position as

HoD / Consultant of the Hospital of the Respondent No. 1 Company which they

had proceeded on by their letter dated 15.09.2025.

8. It come to our notice that, the Appellant was removed from the

Directorship of the Company by the EGM, held on 03.10.2025, but, the decision

of EGM itself has not been made as a subject matter of challenge in the principal

Company Petition, as it was filed much prior to it on 18.09.2025. However, the

said relief has been attempted to be introduced by the Appellant. Later on, filing

a Company Application CA No. 186 / 2025 under Section 242(4) of the

Companies Act in CP No. 125 / BB / 2025, wherein he has made the prayer to

hold the EGM dated 03.10.2025 to be null and void.

Comp App (AT) (CH) No.164/2025 Page 4 of 6

9. We make it clear at this juncture itself that until and unless the decision of

the said EGM dated 03.10.2025, removing him from the Directorship of the

Respondent No. 1 Company to challenge in the principal Company Petition, there

cannot any injunction granted in favour of the Appellant for his continuance as a

Director.

10. Apart from it, if we examine the impugned order, we find that the Ld.

Tribunal has observed that the Appellant has indulged in Forum Shopping by

initially invoking the Civil jurisdiction under Section 9 of the CPC and getting an

ex-parte interim order and then upon vacation of the said Interim Order, has filed

the Company Petition alleging an act of filing of a Company Petition alleging an

act of Oppression and Mismanagement and that it will amount to be a malicious

proceedings.

11. Be that as it may. At this stage, if the relief sought for by the Petitioner in

the instant Company Appeal, is granted, it will be in contradiction to the order of

Ld. Civil Court dated 15.09.2025, vacating the Interim Order dated 16.06.2025

granted by it, for the reasons recorded therein.

12. Since, the Company Petition itself is pending consideration, there cannot

be a contradictory Interim Stay Order, as it was solicited by the Applicant in his

Company Petition in the relief sought therein, in context of his removal from the

Directorship of the Company.

Comp App (AT) (CH) No.164/2025 Page 5 of 6

13. In that eventuality, considering the reason, which has been assigned in the

impugned order and also considering the surrounding facts and circumstances,

which we have already dealt with hereinabove, we do not think that, it is a fit case

to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the Company Appeal (AT)

(CH) No. 164 / 2025 lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. The

connected pending Interlocutory Application, if any, would stand closed.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Jatindranath Swain] Member (Technical)

SR/MS/AK

Comp App (AT) (CH) No.164/2025 Page 6 of 6