Marri Venugopal vs Aarush Building Materials Private ...

In the matter of: MR. MALAKONDAIAH PAVULURI S/o. Narasaid, Aged about 70 years, R/o. H.No.16-2-415, Srinivasa Agraham, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh - 524001 ...APPELLANT NO. 1

MR. MARRI JAGANNADHAM S/o. Sr. Seetharamaiah, Aged about 78 years, R/o Morris Project A, Plot No.162, Moti Nagar, Hyderabad - 500018 ...APPELLANT NO. 2

MR. MADHAV PAVULURI S/o. Mr. Malakondaiah Pavuluri, Aged about 47 years, R/o. H.No.16-2-415, Srinivasa Agraharam, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh - 524001 ...APPELLANT NO. 3

V

M/S. AARUSH BUILDING MATERIALS PRIVATE LIMITED Reg Office: Plot No.304, H.No.8-3-944/15, Sri Rama Enclave, Yellareddyguda Lane, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500073 ...RESPONDENT NO. 1

DR. SRINIVAS SUNKAVALLY S/o Dr. Kesava Rao Sunkavally, Aged about 53 years, R/o 119 Ν. Hunters Crossing Circle Spring, TX 77381 Represented by his GPA Holder Mr Ramanand Namburi

Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.67 & 106/2025 Page 1 of 8 S/o Late Dr. Rangaiah Choudhary Namburi, Aged about 61 years R/o Plot No.30, BN Reddy Colony, Road No.14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500034 ...RESPONDENT NO. 2

MARRI VENUGOPAL S/o Marri Jagannadham, Aged about 54 years, R/o 23 Golf Links Ave, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA ...PROFORMA/RESPONDENT NO. 3

AASHRITH WINDOWS AND DOORS PRIVATE LIMITED Reg Office: Survey no.19/1, Balusupadu, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh - 521175 ...PROFORMA/RESPONDENT NO. 4 Present : For Appellants : Mr. TK. Bhaskar & Mr. Niranjan S. Rao, Advocates For Respondents : Mr. D. Narendar Naik, Advocate for R2 Ms. Priyadarshini Natarajan, Advocate for R4

WITH Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 106 / 2025 IA No. 1183 / 2025 In the matter of: MARRI VENUGOPAL S/o Marri Jagannadham, Aged about 54 years, R/o 23 Golf Links Ave, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA ...APPELLANT

V

M/S. AARUSH BUILDING MATERIALS PRIVATE LIMITED Reg Office: Plot No.304, H.No.8-3-944/15, Sri Rama Enclave, Yellareddyguda Lane, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500073 ...RESPONDENT NO. 1

Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.67 & 106/2025 Page 2 of 8 DR. SRINIVAS SUNKAVALLY S/o Dr. Kesava Rao Sunkavally, Aged about 53 years, R/o 119 Ν. Hunters Crossing Circle Spring, TX 77381 Represented by his GPA Holder Mr Ramanand Namburi S/o Late Dr. Rangaiah Choudhary Namburi, Aged about 61 years R/o Plot No.30, BN Reddy Colony, Road No.14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500034 ...RESPONDENT NO. 2

MR. MALAKONDAIAH PAVULURI S/o. Narasaid, Aged about 70 years, R/o. H.No.16-2-415, Srinivasa Agraham, Nellor, Andhra Pradesh - 524001 ...PROFORMA/RESPONDENT NO. 3

MR. MARRI JAGANNADHAM S/o. Sr. Seetharamaiah, Aged about 78 years, R/o Morris Project A, Plot No.162, Moti Nagar, Hyderabad - 500018 ...PROFORMA/RESPONDENT NO. 4

MR. MADHAV PAVULURI S/o. Mr. Malakondaiah Pavuluri, Aged about 47 years, R/o. H.No.16-2-415, Srinivasa Agraharam, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh - 524001 ...PROFORMA/RESPONDENT NO. 5

AASHRITH WINDOWS AND DOORS PRIVATE LIMITED Reg Office: Survey no.19/1, Balusupadu, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh - 521175 ...PROFORMA/RESPONDENT NO. 6 Present : For Appellants : Mr. Jerin Asher Sojan, Mr. Adharsh. S

Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.67 & 106/2025 Page 3 of 8 & Mr. Avinash Krishnan Ravi, Advocates For Respondents : Mr. D. Narendar Naik, Advocate for R2 Mr. TK. Bhaskar & Mr. Niranjan S. Rao, Advocates for R3, R4 & R5

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 23.09.2025:

A. Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 67/2025

This company appeal has been preferred by the Appellant being

aggrieved as against the impugned order that, was rendered by the Ld. NCLT

Hyderabad Bench in CP/135/241/HDB/2018, being the proceedings, which

were carried under Section 241 and 242, 213, and 119 of the Companies Act,

2013, to be read with Rules 11, 23, and 43 of the NCLT Rules of 2016.

In the proceedings, which were drawn by the Respondent No. 2,

herein, Dr. Srinivas Sunkavally, the Ld. Tribunal, the impugned order of

10.03.2025 has partly allowed the company petition with certain directions

that were contained in Para 52 of the impugned order, thereby declaring

Respondent No. 2 to 5 of the company petition to be engaging themselves in

an act of oppression and mismanagement, which was held to be prejudicial

to the interests of the Respondent No. 1 company.

The Appellant, while putting challenge to the impugned order, has

primarily argued the company appeal on the ground that, the impugned order

happens to be in violation of principle of natural justice, for the reason being

that, an effective opportunity of hearing was not accorded to the Appellant

Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.67 & 106/2025 Page 4 of 8 to enable him to establish his case, and hence it cannot be said to be an

effective adjudication of his rights, which were likely to be affected by the

impugned order which allowed the company petition. Besides that, there

were number of other issues, which were also raised by the Ld. Counsel for

the Appellant, out of which one of them was pertaining to the aspect of

limitation.

When the matter was taken up today, the Ld. Counsel for the

Respondents had submitted that, they agree with the argument of the

Appellant, that he was not provided with an effective opportunity of hearing

by the Ld. Tribunal while rendering the impugned order of 10.03.2025, and

that they will not have any objection as such if the impugned order is quashed

and the matter is remitted back to the Ld. Tribunal to re-decide the matter,

that is, the CP No. 135/241/HDB/2018 on its own merits.

Owing to the aforesaid submission of the Ld. Counsel for the

Respondents, and owing to the argument extended by the Ld. Counsel for

the Appellant of not having been provided with an effective opportunity of

hearing, which is accepted by the Respondents, exclusively for the aforesaid

reason, the impugned order of 10.03.2025, as passed in CP No.

135/241/HDB/2018, is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the

Ld. NCLT Hyderabad Bench to re-decide the CP No. 135/241/HDB/2018 in

the matters of Dr. Srinivas Sunkavally v. M/s. Aarush Building Material

Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.67 & 106/2025 Page 5 of 8 Private Limited and Others, exclusively on its own merits, based on material

already on record.

It is made clear that we have not made any observations with regards

to the merits of the matter; all the issues are left open to be decided by the

Ld. Tribunal, based upon the respective contentions to be raised by the

parties to the proceedings based upon the material, which has already been

placed on record before the Ld. NCLT, Hyderabad Bench.

Subject to the aforesaid the 'company appeal' is 'allowed'. The

'impugned order' would stand 'quashed'.

B. Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 106/2025

This company appeal has been preferred by the Appellant being

aggrieved as against the impugned order that, was rendered by the Ld. NCLT

Hyderabad Bench in CP/135/241/HDB/2018, being the proceedings, which

were carried under Section 241 and 242, 213, and 119 of the Companies Act,

2013, to be read with Rules 11, 23, and 43 of the NCLT Rules of 2016.

In the proceedings, which were drawn by the Respondent No. 2,

herein, Dr. Srinivas Sunkavally, the Ld. Tribunal by the impugned order of

10.03.2025 has partly allowed the company petition with certain directions

that were contained in Para 52 of the impugned order, thereby declaring

Respondent No. 2 to 5 of the company petition to be engaging themselves in

Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.67 & 106/2025 Page 6 of 8 an act of oppression and mismanagement, which was held to be prejudicial

to the interests of the Respondent No. 1 company.

The Appellant, while putting challenge to the impugned order, has

primarily argued the company appeal on the ground that, the impugned order

happens to be in violation of principle of natural justice, for the reason being

that, an effective opportunity of hearing was not accorded to him to enable

to establish his case, and hence it cannot be said to be an effective

adjudication of his rights, which were likely to be affected by the impugned

order which allowed the company petition. Besides that, there were number

of other issues, which were also raised by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant,

out of which one of them was pertaining to the aspect of limitation.

When the matter was taken up today, the Ld. Counsel for the

Respondents had submitted that, they agree with the argument of the

Appellant, that he was not provided with an effective opportunity of hearing

by the Ld. Tribunal, while rendering the impugned order of 10.03.2025, and

that they will not have any objection as such if the impugned order is

quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Ld. Tribunal to re-decide the

matter, that is, the CP No. 135/241/HDB/2018 on its own merits.

Owing to the aforesaid submission of the Ld. Counsel for the

Respondents, and owing to the argument extended by the Ld. Counsel for

the Appellant of not having been provided with an effective opportunity of

Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.67 & 106/2025 Page 7 of 8 hearing which is accepted by the Respondents, exclusively for the aforesaid

reason, the impugned order of 10.03.2025, as passed in CP No.

135/241/HDB/2018, is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the

Ld. NCLT Hyderabad Bench to re-decide the CP No. 135/241/HDB/2018 in

the matters of Dr. Srinivas Sunkavally v. M/s. Aarush Building Material

Private Limited and Others, exclusively on its own merits, based on material

already on record.

It is made clear that we have not made any observations with regards

to the merits of the matter; all the issues are left open to be decided by the

Ld. Tribunal, based upon the respective contentions to be raised by the

parties to the proceedings based upon the material, which has already been

placed on record before the Ld. NCLT, Hyderabad Bench.

Subject to the aforesaid the 'company appeal' is 'allowed'. The

'impugned order' would stand 'quashed'.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Jatindranath Swain] Member (Technical)

SN/MS/AK

Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.67 & 106/2025 Page 8 of 8