Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 10201
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ, RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J
Velaga Srirama Murthy – Appellant
Versus
Sri Mathani Matha Agros Private Limited – Respondent
Writ Appeal No: 575 of 2025 | Writ Appeal No: 576 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P NAGENDRA REDDY
For the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, SRI VENKAT CHALLA, GP FOR HOME
The court affirmed that removal from directorship as confirmed by the National Company Law Tribunal precludes any claim for impleadment in legal proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Writ appeal against the dismissal of implead petition - The appellant sought impleadment as he claimed to be a Director, which was challenged on grounds of his removal from the position - The NCLT order confirming the removal of the appellant as Director was not contested and serves as the basis for the dismissal of the application. (Paras 2-8)
(B) Inability to establish a right to be made a party - The learned Single Judge's refusal to allow the appellant's impleadment is upheld as the appellant had not provided sufficient justification for his claim, following the ruling of the NCLT. (Paras 8-9)
Facts of the case:
The appeals involve an appellant appealing against the dismissal of his impleadment petition after being removed as a Director of a private limited company and challenging the Collector's order based on the NCLT's finding.
Findings of Court:
The court found no grounds to overturn the previous findings and rejected the appeals based on proper legal reasoning.
Issues: The main question of whether the appellant had the right to seek impleadment as a director after his removal was directly addressed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that since the appellant failed to demonstrate a valid claim for impleadment due to his removal as a Director upheld by the NCLT, the dismissals were justified.
Result: Writ Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court proposes a common judgment for similar issues. (Para 2) |
| 2. appellant challenged the dismissal of his petition. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. the basis for denial included prior nclt decisions. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. no entitlement established for the appellant post-removal. (Para 8) |
| 5. the court dismissed both writ appeals. (Para 9) |
Advocate for Appellant: Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy Advocates for Respondents; GP for Home, Mr. Venkat Challa, GP for Civil Supplies CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 24‘*’ June, 2025.
P C :
Since the issue involved in both the cases is similar, we propose to dispose of these cases, by way of this common judgment.
the implead petition of the appellant before the learned Single Judge by virtue of order dated 25.04.2025 in W.P.No.9446 of 2025.
HCJ & RCJ '
WA_575 & 576_2025
3. Furthermore, I.A.No.1 of 2025 in Writ Appeal No.575 of 2025 has been filed seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the order dated
25.04.2025, passed in W.P.No.9446 of 2025, wherein the learned single Judge had granted interim suspension of the order dated 17.04.2025, passed by the DistrictCollector.
4. The appellant herein claims to be a Director in Sri Mathangi Matha Agros Private Limited. However, it appears that he was removed as a Director and proceedings were initiated by the appellant before the National Company Law Tribunal where he is stated to have lost.
A further appeal is stated to be pending before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. In the meantime, an order came to be passed by the Collector on 17.04.2025, which was challenged by respondent No.1 before the learned single Judge.
5. An interlocutory application bearing I.A.No.2 of 2025 came to be filed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge seeking impleadment as party respondent in his capacity as a Director of the said company. The said application, however, was rejected by virtue of order dated 25.04.2025 on the ground that the appellant had since been removed as a Director with effect from 30.09.2023 and in this regard the learned Single Judge had placed reliance upon the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal.
6. Copy of the order passed by the NCLT has not been placed on record. However, the learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute the HCJ & RCJ WA_575 & 576_2025 fact that the removal of the appellant as a Director had been challenged before the NCLT and was dismissed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and find no ground for granting leave as prayed for in view of the order passed by the NCLT refusing to grant relief to the appellant pertaining to his removal as a Director.
8. We see no perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in refusing the relief of impleadment to the appellant inasmuch as he had failed to establish his right to be impleaded as such on account of his ceasing to be a Director in the company.
9. For the aforementioned reasons, I.A.No.1 of 2025 in/and Writ Appeal No.575 of 2025, is dismissed. Consequently, the W.A.No.576 of 2025 shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in these appeals, shall stand closed.
Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR /
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri P Nagendra Reddy Advocate [OPUCJ
2. One CC to Sri Venkat Challa Advocate [OPUC]
3. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]
4. Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh[OUT]
5. Three CD Copies Gsc (gsg)
