Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 02 NCLAT CK 1913

Dr. Ashok Bakthavathsalam, KGISL Technologies And Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Mr. N. Sureshkumar vs M/s. Empereal - KGDS Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Empereal Energy And Services Pte Ltd, Mr. Manoj Diwakaran

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, CHENNAI Bench · Decided on 19 February 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial) · Jatindranath Swain, Member (Technical)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 13 / 2026 (IA Nos. 197, 198 & 199 / 2026)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 442 words

(Hybrid Mode)

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

The Appellant before us is the Petitioner to the Company Petition i.e. CA/76(CHE)/2025 in Dr. Ashok Bakthavathsalam & 2 Ors v. Empereal – KGDS Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. & 2 Ors., before the Ld. NCLT, Chennai-II.

2.

The said Company Petition was preferred by the Appellant by invoking the provisions contained under Section 241 & 242 of the Companies Act, 2013.

3.

The Company Petition was preferred before the Ld. Tribunal on 23.03.2025, contained the prayer for grant of a principal relief, to be granted, on the final adjudication of the Petition itself, as well as an interim relief, to be granted during the pendency of the proceedings of the Company Petition.

4.

When the Company Petition was taken up before the Ld. Tribunal, the Ld. Tribunal, while exercising its discretionary powers, observed at the stage when the Company Petition was being considered for consideration of the interim relief, that, it may not be appropriate at that moment to consider the grant of interim relief and accordingly, deferred the same.

5.

At the same time, the Ld. Tribunal directed that the pleadings be exchanged and that the Petition as well as the other Applications filed in the said Petition by the parties will be taken up for consideration on the next date fixed.

6.

So far as the nature of the Order, which is under challenge in the instant Company Appeal is concerned, the challenge to the said Order by the Appellant as it has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant in the instant Company Appeal, is limited to his grievances qua the denial of grant of an interim relief.

7.

The Impugned Order does not show that the Ld. Tribunal, has at all denied to grant a relief; rather the observation made therein only shows that, consideration of interim relief, has been deferred to be considered, because, the Ld. Tribunal has consciously used the word in context of interim relief ``at this stage’’.

8.

In view of the fact that, there is no adjudication till date on merits of the interim relief by the Tribunal, we close this Company Appeal with a request to the Ld. Tribunal to consider and pass an appropriate order on merits on the interim relief prayed by the Appellant, after giving an opportunity to the other side also, as far as possible by the next date fixed as per the roster of the Ld. Tribunal.

9.

Subject to the aforesaid, the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 13 / 2026, would stand closed. All pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, would too stand closed.