Dr. Sunny Davis Ayyala vs Thrithva Healthcare Private Limited & Ors.

Heard the Ld. counsels for the parties. The proceedings by way of Company Petition No. 69/241/HDB/2023 stood instituted by Respondent No.2 herein, Dr. Mudumala Issac Abhilash, who is represented by Mr. Y. Suryanarayana, the Ld. Counsel appearing on his behalf. Though there are 10 Respondents in this Appeal and only Respondent No.2 is present today, it is stated by the counsels, that the respondents other than Respondent No.2 have been the opposite party (Respondents) to the proceedings of the Company Petition and therefore their, rights will not be affected if this appeal is heard in their absence. Hence, we proceed to decide the matter which was preferred under Section 241 and 242, Companies Act, 2013.

A very triflinge issue has come for consideration before us, in the instant Company Appeal, which is that the Appellant herein who happens to be the opposite party/ Respondent No.2, to the proceedings of the Company Petition under Section 241 and 242 of Companies Act, 2013. Expresses his grievances as against the orders passed on IA (C.A) No. 133, 101, 157 of 2024 in the aforesaid Company Petition. The consequential effect of the Impugned Order had been that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority for the purposes of facilitating decision-making , has appointed Forensic Auditors, afresh to conduct the forensic Audit for the financial years of 2021-2022 to 2023-2024 and has directed that the said forensic audit report be submitted within 20 days. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority while passing the aforesaid order had observed that, the necessity to pass an order of appointing the Fresh Forensic Auditors had been on account of certain apparent anomalies noticed in the Audit Report submitted by the earlier Auditors, the contents of which they were unable to explain during the examination of such report, before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority.

The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant presses upon that there was no necessity for the Ld. Adjudicating Authority to appoint a Fresh Auditor and call for a fresh Forensic Audit Report, owing to the fact that, there was a pre-forensic report on record. The short question for consideration before us would be, as to whether the Appellant in the capacity of being an opposite party to the proceedings under Section 241,of the Companies Act, 2013 could at all have any grievances as against the impugned order, in which Ld. Adjudicating Authority by exercising its discretion, has called for a Fresh Forensic Audit Report to facilitate decision-making, and that too, after observing that the contents of the earlier forensic audit report could not be justified by its authors on examination by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. When questioned thus, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that calling for a fresh forensic Audit report would yet again delay the finalization of the proceedings and it will run contrary to the earlier order passed by this Appellate Tribunal on 19.08.2024 where the directions has been issued, requesting the Ld. Adjudicating Authority to decide the Petition at the earliest, within a period of 2 of months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.

The relevant observation made therein by us is extracted hereunder: -

We are of the view that, even though we have issued the directions to the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, requesting to decide the petition within a certain time frame, the same should not be construed as a direction of circumvent laid down procedure to achieve speedy disposal of the case. It is a settled principle of law, further fortified by the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court that, the directions issued by a Superior Tribunal or Court to a lower tribunal or court to expedite the pending proceedings, will not in itself be a sufficient reason for the concerned lower tribunal or court to override the laid down procedure, which could otherwise facilitate it to arrive at an effective adjudication of the lis. We also endorse the same and are of the view and that, the forensic audit report, which has been called for by the Impugned Order, only attempts to meet the ends of justice by enabling an effective adjudication and that, it does not amount to be a deprivation of right of any of the parties to the proceedings which may create any impediment in enforcement of their rights. Thus, the aforesaid directions as issued by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority calling for a fresh forensic audit report, does not call for any interference, at this stage by us.

Accordingly, the Appeal would stand ‘dismissed’. However, in order to address the apprehension expressed by the Appellant counsel about the possibility of the proceedings getting further delayed, Ld. Adjudicating Authority will be requested again to expedite the proceedings in the interest of justice. Ld. Adjudicating Authority has already requested in the concluding part of its order, seeking an extension of further 60 days for completing the proceeding of the Company Petition. The same would stand granted with a request made that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority with an expectation, that it would complete the proceedings within the extended period of 60 days as requested for and granted by us by in the judgment. Subject to the aforesaid expectation the Appeal would stand ‘dismissed’.