SL. No.4

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

HYDERABAD BENCH COURT HALL NO: II

Hearing Through: VC and Physical (Hybrid) Mode

CORAM: SHRI. RAJEEV BHARDWAJ – HON’BLE MEMBER (J)

CORAM: SHRI. SANJAY PURI - HON’BLE MEMBER (T)

ATTENDANCE-CUM-ORDER SHEET OF THE HEARING OF NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL,

HYDERABAD BENCH, HELD ON 19.02.2025 at 10:30 AM

TRANSFER PETITION NO. 78/HDB/2016

COMPANY PETITION/APPLICATION IA (CA)/94/2024 and IA (CA)/93/2024 in

NO. CP (IB) No. 50/397/398/HDB/2015

NAME OF THE COMPANY Divya Retreat Limited & (06) Others

NAME OF THE PETITIONER(S) Surekha Reddy & (46) Others

NAME OF THE RESPONDENT(S) Divya Retreat Limited & (06) Others

UNDER SECTION 397/398

ORDER

IA (CA) 94/2024

Orders pronounced, recorded vide separate sheets. In the result, this application

is disposed of with directions.

IA (CA) 93/2024

Orders pronounced, recorded vide separate sheets. In the result, this application

is disposed of with directions.

Sd/- Sd/-

MEMBER (T) MEMBER (J)

Apoorva

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH -II C.P.No.50 of 2015 (TP No.78/HDB/2016)

[Sections 397, 398, 399, 402 and 403 read with Schedule XI and other applicable provisions of the said Act.]

In the matter of M/s.Divya Retreat Limited IA (CA) Nos.93 of 2024, 94 of 2024 Mr.Dasari Lokesh Chandra & Others … Applicant/Respondent No.4 V E R S U S Mrs.Surekha Reddy & 46 Others …Respondents/Petitioner Date of Order: 19.02.2025 Coram:

Sri Rajeev Bhardwaj, Hon’ble Member (Judicial)

Sri Sanjay Puri, Hon’ble Member (Technical)

Counsel/Parties present:

For the Applicant : Mr.Harish Sheila & Associates, Advocates For the Respondent : Dr.S.V.Ramakrishna, Mr.S.V.Vanshi Krishna, Ms.S.Deepa Sree, Advocates P e r: Rajeev Bhardwaj, Member (Judicial)

O R D E R

1. The reluctance of Mr.K.Venkateswara Rao (Respondent), holder of the Specific Power of Attorney (SPA) representing 47 Petitioners in CP No.50 (TP No.78/HDB/2016)

Date of Order: 19.02.2025 of 2015 (TP No.78/HDB/2016) to disclose information about the death of certain Petitioners has led the Applicant, who is also the General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder for Respondents No.2 and 3 in the main Petition, to file IA (CA) Nos.93 of 2024 and 94 of 2024 seeking details of the dates of death of any deceased Petitioners, an order barring the SPA holder from continuing to represent the Petitioners etc.

2. In the interlocutory applications (IAs), the Applicant has specifically stated that they have knowledge of the deaths of Petitioner Nos. 14, 26, 28, and 33 after the execution of the SPA. However, instead of addressing this straightforward issue, the Respondent has raised several unrelated concerns, such as allegations of oppression and mismanagement, as well as challenging the Applicant’s locus standi. By doing so, the Respondent has diverted attention from the real issue—whether the death of certain Petitioners affects the maintainability of the proceedings.

3. In the written arguments, the Respondent has confirmed the death of Mr.Vemula Yathirajam, Mr.Tummala Ramakrishna Rao and Mr.Patnaikuni Keshava Manoranjam out of the four Petitioners named by the Applicant. The Applicant has not only reiterated their knowledge of these four deceased Petitioners but has also named three additional Petitioners, Mr.C.Muthyam, Mr.K.Malliah and Mr.K.V.Subba Rao who have also passed away.

4. Whatsoever, it is clear that some of the Petitioners have already died during the pendency of the case. In the event of death, Rule 53 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules provides for the substitution of the legal (TP No.78/HDB/2016)

Date of Order: 19.02.2025 representatives of a party who dies during the pendency of the proceedings.

This Rule is reproduced below:

53) Substitution of legal representatives:

1) Where a party to a proceeding pending before a Bench dies or is adjudged insolvent or, in the case of a company, being wound up, he proceeding shall not abate and may be continued by or against the executor, administrator or other legal representative of the parties or by or agai