Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 10202
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 | I.A. No. 1 of 2025
For the Appellant: P NAGENDRA REDDY
For Respondent Nos. 3 to 6: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES
For Respondent Nos. 7 to 9: SRI VENKAT CHALLA
For Respondent No.10: GP FOR HOME
Court affirmed the removal of a director by the National Company Law Tribunal, reinforcing adherence to corporate governance and lawful procedural standards.
Headnote:(A) Companies Act, 2013 - Section 241 - Petition against removal as Director and related matters - Appellant’s petition for leave to appeal against a prior order regarding his removal as Director of the company was dismissed due to a failure to establish his right, backing the decision of the National Company Law Tribunal - The decision upheld the procedural correctness of the lower courts and the necessity of maintaining corporate governance standards. (Paras 3, 8)
(B) Writ Appeal - The court addresses the proper channels for addressing grievances regarding company director positions, establishing no grounds to overturn decisions by the National Company Law Tribunal were found. (Paras 6, 9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant claimed a right to maintain his role as Director amidst removal by the National Company Law Tribunal, which also led to pending legal proceedings regarding his removal.
Findings of Court:
The court found no grounds to grant relief or reverse the lower decisions, emphasizing proper adherence to corporate governance.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the appellant could claim a right to reinstatement following his removal and the validity of the decisions given by the National Company Law Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that without demonstrated rights or grounds, the leave to appeal was rightly dismissed, affirming the lower court's ruling as untainted by legal error.
Result: Appeal and all related applications dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dismissal of writ appeals based on procedural adherence. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's claims regarding directorial rights rejected. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. judicial affirmation of tribunal's decisions upholding corporate governance. (Para 8 , 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)
