AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 60/2024
The Appellant, who is the Petitioner in CP No.41/241/HDB/2024, before NCLT, Hyderabad, had preferred an Interlocutory Application being IA (CA) No.203/2024, praying for grant of an interim relief of the nature as extracted hereunder:
“(i)Pass an exparte ad-interim order staying the operation and effect of the decision(s) taken and/or resolution(s) passed in the so-called Council Meeting held on 06.06.2024 by the Respondents No.2 to 5 including the decision to elect the said Respondents as Office Bearers (President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer) of the Council till the final disposal of the accompanying Company Petition;”
The Learned Tribunal while considering the implications of IA No.203/2024, thus preferred by the Applicant/Petitioner, where he had sought for passing of an order by way of an exparte, ad-interim injunction, thereby restraining the Respondents No. 3 to 5, from preventing the applicant from acting as Directors/Additional Directors of Respondent No.1 Company, in any manner, did not grant the prayer as sought for and as intended to be sought for by the Appellant, and instead passed the Impugned Order under challenge, directing the parties to maintain a Status Quo.
The nature of the order, which has been passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority, is interlocutory in nature, because the principal interlocutory application being IA (CA) No.203/2024 is still pending to be adjudicated on its merits. This instant appeal has been preferred as against an interlocutory order which is not of the nature of deciding a lis or right of appellant. Therefore no appeal would lie as the IA (CA) No.203/2024, itself has not been decided on merits.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, Learned Adjudicating Authority of the Hyderabad Bench is requested to decide the IA(CA) No.203/2024, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Subject to the aforesaid, the Company Appeal would stand disposed off.
Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 61/2024
The Appellant in the instant Company Appeal puts a challenge to the impugned order, as it has been passed on 08.08.2024 by the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in IA(CA) No.227/2024, as preferred by the Appellant/Petitioner in CP No.41/241/HDB/2024. The Learned Adjudicating Authority while considering the aforesaid Application IA(CA) No.227/2024 had passed an order to the following effect:-
IA (CA) 227/2024 : Learned Counsel Mr Prithu Garg, for applicant present through Video Conference and stated that despite a clear order dated 26.07.2024, directing that “status quo” be maintained by both sides, the respondents on 27.07.2024 and 30.07.2024 have withdrawn cash of Rs 4,50,000/- and thus have breached the “status quo” order. However, learned counsel Mr. Dishit Bhattacharjee for Respondent No.3 while refuting the same, submitted that on 27.07.2024 applicant also had withdrawn an amount of Rs 59,00,000/-, in violation of the order of “status quo”. Under the circumstances and pending further hearing, in continuation to our earlier order dated 26.07.2024, we hereby further direct that, the concerned managers of HDFC Bank, Lakdikapul Branch, (A/c No. 50200054707981), Axis Bank, Jubilee Hills Branch, (A/c No. 030010100327756) and SBI Bank, Himayat Nagar Branch, (A/c No. 00000062278217653), shall not allow either the petitioners or the respondents or any person or persons representing either the petitioner or the respondents, from withdrawing the amount from the above bank accounts, pending further orders from this Tribunal. Call on 29.08.2024. We direct the parties to immediately submit a copy of this order to the concerned Banks and the Registry to e-mail this order. Let all other IAs be called on the next hearing date. If notice is not taken in the above IA’s let the applicant take due notice well before next hearing date through registered/speed post and also by way of e-mail and counters if any shall be filed well before next hearing date
The Counsel for the Appellant submits that the nature of the interim order runs contrary to what was sought for by the Appellant by filing of the Application IA(CA) No.227/2024.
Consequentially the fact remains that the nature of the order as it has been passed on the application preferred by the Appellant, is clearly being Interlocutory in nature and even though the Appellant has argued on merits of the matter at the stage when the Interlocutory Application itself is yet to be considered on merits, it will be in fitness of things that the Learned Adjudicating Authority National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench takes steps to decide on the said IA as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly NCLT, Hyderabad bench is requested to decide the aforesaid Interlocutory Application IA(CA) No.227/2024 on its own merits within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Subject to the aforesaid the Appeal would stand Disposed of.