Anakachery Mossakutty & Ors vs Fidus Real Estate And Builders Pvt Ltd & ...

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 33/2026 (IA Nos. 408 & 516/2026) In the matter of: Anakachery Mossakutty, aged 64 years S/O Alimohmed Haji Anakachery House, Valiyaparamba, Pulickal, Malappuram - 673637 ... Appellant No. 1

Anakacheeri Abdul Razak, aged 59 years S/O Alimohmed Haji, Anakachery House, Valiyaparamba, Pulickal, Malappuram - 673637 ... Appellant No. 2

Sulaiman, aged 52 years S/O Alimohmed Haji, Anakachery House, Valiyaparamba, Pulickal, Malappuram - 673637 ... Appellant No. 3

Yoosuf Anakkacheri, aged 47 years S/O Alimohmed Haji, Anakachery House, Valiyaparamba, Pulickal, Malappuram - 673637 ... Appellant No. 4

Mohamed Anakacheeri, aged 65 years S/O Alimohmed llaji, Anakachery House, Valiyaparamba, Pulickal, Malappuram - 673637 ... Appellant No. 5

Usman Anakkachery, aged 48 years S/O Alimohmed Haji, Anakachery House, Valiyaparamba, Pulickal, Malappuram - 673637 ... Appellant No. 6 V Fidus Real Estate And Builders Pvt Ltd CIN : U70102KL2005PTC018383 Regd Ofiice Address - Door No 4/6, Anakachery House Valiyaparamba Post, Malappuram, Kerala - 673637 ... Respondent No. 1

KunhimarakarKaruveppil Bapputty, aged about 65 S/O Mohmed, Karuveppil House, Vengara P.O Malappuram ... Respondent No. 2

Comp App (AT) (CH) No. 33/2026 Page 1 of 5 Muhammed Basheer, aged 54 S/O Abdul Khader, Poolamparaba House Kummini Paramba, Kondotty ... Respondent No. 3

Habeeb Rehman, aged About 36 S/O Kujahammedkutty, AbhayampookkayilTirut PO ... Respondent No. 4

Khatupareti Suleman, aged About 62 Kattuppatathi, Valiyakath (House), Muthuvellur P.O Kondotty ... Respondent No. 5

Naduthodi Mohamed Ali, aged 58 Naduthodi House, Kodinji P.O, Thirurangad i P.O Malappuram ... Respondent No. 6

Registrar Of Companies Company Law Bhawan, BMC Road, Thrikkakara, Kochi - 682021 ... Respondent No. 7

Present : For Appellants : Ms. Siji Abraham & Ms. CS Sreepriya Kalarikkal, Advocates For Respondents : Mr. Shameem Ahamed & Mr. Jerin Asher Sojan, Advocates

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 25.03.2026:

[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

Comp App (AT) (CH) No. 33/2026 Page 2 of 5 Appeal would stand condoned. Accordingly, IA No. 516/2026 preferred by the

Appellant would stand allowed.

2. 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.

3. 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

Comp App (AT) (CH) No. 33/2026 Page 3 of 5 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

Comp App (AT) (CH) No. 33/2026 Page 4 of 5

7. 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.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Jatindranath Swain] Member (Technical)

YS/MS/AK

Comp App (AT) (CH) No. 33/2026 Page 5 of 5