Dr. Shobha Fakkirappa Sunagar vs Balaji Neurocare Health Services ...

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dismiss the Company Petition itself as withdrawn, with a liberty reserved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Company Petition, was permitted to be dismissed as withdrawn, with a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