AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sathish Ninan, J.
The reliefs claimed in the Writ Petition read thus:
“1. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the 2nd respondent to conduct an enquiry 3rd respondent company under S.447 and 448 of the Companies Act, 2013 within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
ii. To issue a writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the Exhibit P-8 representation submitted by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.”
When the Writ Petition came up for admission on 08.04.2024, an exparte interim order was passed directing the 2nd respondent-Registrar of Companies to consider Ext.P8 representation. In Ext.P8, the petitioner essentially seeks for conduct of enquiry under Sections 447 and 448 of the Companies Act, 2013. In substance, it is the main relief claimed by the petitioner. The grant of interim relief would practically amount to grant of the main relief sought.
We are of the opinion that, it would be sufficient if the writ petition is considered, with due notice to the respondent. The interim order passed in the writ petition is liable to be set aside.
Resultantly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The order impugned is set aside. We clarify that we have not expressed anything on the merits of the rival contentions.
It is reported that pursuant to the order impugned, the ROC has issued a notice for hearing. Needless to say that since the order impugned has been set aside, further proceedings pursuant to such order is not liable to be continued.