AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Hybrid Mode)
[Oral Judgment: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)]
The registry has reported that, there is 2 days delay in refiling of the Company Appeal, for which the Appellant has filed IA No. 516/2026, explaining the delay of 2 days, that has chanced in refiling of the Appeal. Considering the grounds taken therein, 2 days delay that has chanced in refiling of the Company Appeal would stand condoned. Accordingly, IA No. 516/2026 preferred by the Appellant would stand allowed.
In any judicial proceedings, if the proceedings are accompanied with any Interlocutory Applications, be it even in the shape of grant of an interim protection too, it goes without saying that any finding, which is recorded therein while deciding the same is always only tentative in nature, and is, only for the purposes of enabling the Court or the Tribunal to decide the interim application and that, any finding recorded thereof while deciding interlocutory applications is not to be taken into consideration for the purposes of deciding the principal lis nor be permitted to influence the final decision are to be swayed by any such findings, even though the issues covered in the decision taken on the IA, remain to be considered by the Tribunal, when the principal lis is decided on merits after considering evidence.
The Appellant had preferred an IA being IA(C/Act)/196/KOB/2025 in CP(c/Act)/20/KOB/2024 seeking an interim order that the AGM, which was then scheduled to be held on 29.11.2025, be stayed during the pendency of the proceedings of the Company Petition, or in the alternative, if at all the AGM was still required to be proceeded with, it should be proceeded under the supervision of the Tribunal, in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 97 to be read with Section 242 of the Companies Act. Be that as it may. Since Learned Tribunal by its order of 28.11.2025, declined to grant the interim protection that was sought for by the Appellant in the interim relief, the AGM as it was scheduled to be held on 29.11.2025 has already been concluded. In that eventuality, for all practical purposes, the purpose of seeking interim protection, which was sought for by the Appellant by filing of an IA, as of now stands exhausted, as it has resulted into a fresh decision, which has been taken by way of an AGM of 29.11.2025.
The consequences of the decision of the AGM of 29.11.2025, will still be an issue open for the Appellant to agitate before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has expressed an apprehension and rightly so, that in Para 4, the finding which has been recorded, particularly those as contained in Para 4(a), pertaining to the status of the Appellant of not being the member of the Board will affect his case. We make it clear that these finding recorded while deciding interlocutory application would be taken as to be only a tentative finding exclusively for the purposes of considering the stay application only.
We make it very clear that the disposal of this Company Petition would be independent to the findings recorded and the observation that have been made in the impugned order and that the Company Petition is expected to be considered by the Tribunal independently, not being swayed by the finding as recorded in Para 4(a) and Para 4(b) of the impugned order.
It is settled law that, any finding, which has been recorded in an interlocutory proceedings is only limited for the purposes of that proceedings only and is tentative in nature and that it will have no bearing on the main petition. Main petition has to be decided on the basis of an independent appreciation of evidence, which has to be brought by the respective parties, on record before the Tribunal, including the aspect of as to whether the Appellant continues to be the Member of the Board or not. Subject to the aforesaid and as agreed by the Counsel for the parties, the Company Appeal stands disposed of.