Dr. Shobha Fakkirappa Sunagar vs 1. Balaji Neurocare Health Services Private Limited, 2. Dr. Kranthi Kiran Siddappa, 3. Mr. Shashank K

(Hybrid Mode)

Oral Judgment: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)

Heard Ld. counsels for the parties. A very short question that emerges for consideration before this Appellate Tribunal is with regards to the powers, which are to be exercised by the Ld. NCLT, while considering the application, i.e., CA No.57/2022, praying for reinstatement of the Appellant as Director of Respondent No.1 company.

The Appellant had preferred CA No.57/2022, before the Ld. Tribunal praying for the restoration of her Directorship in Respondent No.1 company. The said application came up for consideration before the Ld. Tribunal on 03.09.2025 and after formulating certain points to be considered, the matter was directed to be posted on 04.11.2025. When the matter was taken up on 04.11.2025, with regards to the reinstatement of the Appellant of continuing her Directorship as emerging from the provisions contained under Section 164 of the Companies Act, 2013, that was made as a subject to be considered by the Ld. Tribunal on the date fixed, i.e., on 04.11.2025.

But owing to the fact that, the Appellant was not able to supply the sufficient material, despite orders of the Ld. Tribunal, with regards to meet the stipulations contained under Section 164 of the Companies Act, 2013, the Ld. Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned order. The grievance of the Appellant is particularly confined to that the observation made in para 5 of the impugned order, whereby a direction had been issued for taking action against the Appellant under the Karnataka Civil Services Conduct Rules, is bad. The Appellant submits that, the said direction is outside the ambit and scope of powers to be exercised by the Ld. NCLT.

But, at this stage the Appellant has made a statement at bar that, he does not intend to press upon CA No.57/2022. Hence, CA No.57/2022, will be disposed of as not pressed, without affecting all the other questions to be considered by the Ld. Tribunal on its own merits. Owing to the fact that, the Appellant had withdrawn CA No.57/2022, this company appeal qua the challenge given to the impugned order loses its significance and the company appeal would stand closed.