APHC010385692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0!¥i0 TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 19525 OF 2025 Between: M/s Devi Engineering and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office at Plot No. 20, S.No.139/1, IVY Grand, Flat No. G-1, Ground Floor, Narasannanagar, Suryaraopeta, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh. Rep. by its Managing Director Mr. Jagatha Venkata Gangadhar, S/o Padmanabha Rao, Age 46 Years, Occ.Business, R/o.Flat No.503, Lotus Esplendito Apartment, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana-500034. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Union of India, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs V Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 2. The National Company Law Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, I Floor, APIIC Building IT Park, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh-522503. 3. M/s Global Enterprises, Rep. by its Partner, Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, No. 15, Vasu Street, Kilpauk, Chennai-600010, Tamil Nadu. 4. M/s Sai Agenpy, Rep. by its Partner Mr. Sushil M. Jain No. 15, Vasu Street, Kilpauk, Chennai-600010, Tamil Nadu. 5. M/S S C Shah Corporation, Rep. by its partner Mr. Suresh Kumar B. Jain, at No. 57, Ormes, Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-600010, Tamil Nadu. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, direction, order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the impugned order, dated 13.06.2025, passed in CP(IB)/1/7/AMR/2025, and the consequential order, dated 10.07.2025, passed in IA(IBC)/179/2025 in CP(IB)/1/7/AMR/2025 by the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 by setting-aside the same and consequently direct the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal, Amaravati BENCH At Managalagiri to provide him an opportunity to contest matter by filing his counter in CP(IB)/1/7/AMR/2025 before passing any orders adjudicating the above said matter. or lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in CP(IB)/1/7/AMR/2025, dated 10.07.2025, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A CHANDRAIH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following order: APHC010385692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) E!¥i0 Mi [3329] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 19525/2025 Between: 1.M/S DEVI ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD... REGD OFFICE AT PLOT NO. 20, S. NO. 139/1, IVY GRAND, FLAT NO. G-1 NARASANNANAGAR, SURYARAOPETA GROUND FLOOR KAKINADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. DIRECTOR MR. PADMANABHA RAO NO.503 HILLS HYDERABAD, TELANGANA-500034. REP. BY ITS MANAGING JAGATHA VENKATA GANGADHAR S/0 AGE 46 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O.FLAT LOTUS ESPLENDITO APARTMENT, ROAD N0.1, BANJARA ...PETITIONER AND UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 1.THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS V FLOOR, A-WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110001. NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AMARAVATI BENCH. I MANGALAGIRI, ANDHRA 2.THE FLOOR. APIIC BUILDING IT PARK PRADESH-522503. MR. AMIT 3 M/S GLOBAL ENTERPRISES, REP. BY ITS PARTNER KUMAR JAIN, NO. 15, VASU STREET. KILPAUK, CHENNAI-600010, TAMIL NADU. 4 M/S SAIAGENCY, REP. BY ITS PARTNER MR. SUSHIL M. JAIN NO, VASU STREET, KILPAUK. CHENNAI-600010. TAMIL NADU. 5.M/S SC SHAH CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS PARTNER MR. 15 2 SURESH KUMAR B. JAIN CHENNAI-600010, TAMIL NADU, AT NO. 57, ORMES, ROAD, KILPAUK ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue a Writ, direction, order or orders particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the impugned order, dated 13.06.2025, passed in CP(IB)/1/7/AMR/2025, and consequential order, dated 10.07.2025, passed in IA(IBC)/179/202 5 in CP(IB)/1/7/AMR/2025 by the Honble National Company Law Tribunal, illegal, arbitrary, violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary the provisions of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 by setting- aside the same and consequently direct the Honble National Company Law Tribunal AMARAVAT! BENCH At Managalagiri to provide me an opportunity to contest matter by filing my counter in CP(IB)/1/7/AMR/2025 before passing any orders or adjudicating the above said matter and pass such lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings CP(iB)/1/7/AMR/2025, dated 10.07.2025, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, in the interest of justice and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: I.ACHANDRAIH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): morq the as to in 1. The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 19525/2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order, dated 13.06.2025, passed in CP(IB)/1/7/AMR/2025, and the consequential order, dated 10.07.2025, passed in IA(IBC)/179/2025 In CP(IB)/1/7/AMR/2025 by the National Company Law Tribunal, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 by setting- aside the same and consequently direct the National Company Law Tribunal Amaravatl Bench at Managalagiri to provide the petitioner an opportunity to contest matter by filing its counter in CP(IB)/1/7/AMR/2025 before passing any orders or adjudicating the above said matter and pass such other order. ” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. After having registration, the petitioner company engaged in providing services to the Hydro Carbon Industries, since 2014. While so, respondent Nos.3 to 5 filed a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 on the file of the 2"'^ respondent/NCLT seeking a relief to declare the petitioner company as an insolvent. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after filing the petition by respondent Nos.3 to 5 under Section 7 of IBC the Tribunal proceeded and passed the impugned order dated 13.06.2025 and consequential order dated 10.07.2025, without putting the petitioner on notice. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner assailed the said orders in this Writ Petition, on the ground of non observation of principles of natural justice. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the violation of the principles of natural justice and reasonable opportunity of hearing, the petitioner is entitled to the relief under Article 226 of Constitution of India, even though the order impugned is an appealable order before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. Hence, the present writ petition is maintainable. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material on record, it is observed that the 2'''’ respondent passed the order dated 13.06.2025 as under: “During the hearing held on 24.03.2025, the Proxy Counsel appearing for the Corporate Debtor has sought three weeks" time to file the reply. At the request, this Adjudicating Authority has granted three weeks’ time for filing the reply after duly service the copy on the other side. However, it Is noticed that there is no reply filed by 5 the Corporate Debtor till date and today there is no representation on behalf of the Corporate Debtor either through counsel or in person. Therefore, the right to file reply by the Corporate Debtor Is forfeited. Heard the Proxy Counsel for the Financial Creditor for deciding the matter on merits. Reserved for Orders. ” 7. Pursuant to the order dated 13.06.2025, the 2^'^ respondent passed a consequential order dated 10.07,2025, which is extracted hereunder; lAflBO/l 79/2025: This lA has been filed by the Corporate Debtor Seeking to set aside the order dated 13.06.2025, whereby the matter was reserved for orders. It is a settled principle that once the matter is reserved for orders after completion of arguments, such an application seeking to recall or set aside the reservation order is not maintainable. Moreover, in the light of the main Company Petition itself having been disposed of as infructuous, this lA has become infructuous and IA(IBC)/179/2025 is unsustainable. Accordingly, dismissed and stands disposed of ” 8. On perusal of the orders passed by the 2'''* respondent, it appears that the petitioner was represented by proxy counsel. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner did not serve the notice and not provided an opportunity of hearing is contrary to respondent. Further it is not the of the petitioner that the proxy counsel who appeared on its nd the observations made by the 2 case 6 behalf is not duly authorized. Therefore, the appearance of proxy counsel on behalf of the petitioner itself indicates that the petitioner was issued notice and then the petitioner had authorized the proxy counsel to appear before the 2'’^ respondent on its behalf. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, this Court is inclined to safeguard the interest of the petitioner till the date of initiating or availing effective alternative statutory remedy by way of appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dispose of directing the petitioner to assail the impugned order as well as the consequential order by way of appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), within a period of three(3) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. After filing the said appeal along with the interlocutory application if any, the appellate tribunal may consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In the meanwhile, the 2^^^ respondent is restrained not to pass any other order or orders in nature of coercive action pursuant to the ‘memo’ filed by the Financial Creditor against the petitioner for a period of four(4) weeks or till the date of submission of appeal and the interlocutory application if any, whichever is less. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- K.KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 2. The National Company Law Tribunal, Amaravati , Union of India, V Bench, I Floor, APIIC Building IT Park, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh-522503. 3. M/s Global Enterprises, Rep. by its Partner, Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, No. 15, Vasu Street, Kilpauk, Chennai-600010, Tamil Nadu. 4. M/s Sai Agency, Rep. by its Partner Mr. Sushil M. Jain No. 15, Vasu Street, Kilpauk, Chennai-600010, Tamil Nadu. 5.. M/s SC Shah Corporation, Rep. by its partner Mr. Jam, at No. 57, Ormes, Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-600010, Tamil Nadu. 6. One CC to Sri A Chandraih Naidu, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor [OPUC] Suresh Kumar B. General of India 8. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:29/07/2025 AND#7^ 0 <» AUG 2025 , Current Section ORDER WP NO. 19525 OF 2025 X «» DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS