Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Harsh Garg vs M/S. Royal Clubs Of India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal12 October 2017

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal's clarification of an interim order, which left its substance unchanged, did not require a fresh hearing of the affected party before it could be made; no substantial change to the interim relief having been effected, there was no ground to remit the matter for hearing on the question of passing another interim order.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALNEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) No. 327 of 2017IN THE MATTER OF:

Harsh Garg ...Appellant

Versus

M/s. Royal Clubs of India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present:

For Appellant : Shri P. Nagesh, Shri Dhruv Gupta and Ms. Eshna Kumar, Advocate

ORDER

12.10.2017 This appeal has been preferred by the appellant - petitioner

against order dated 2nd August, 2017 passed by the National Company Law

Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') whereby

and whereunder the interim order passed by the Tribunal on 13th July, 2017

was explained as follows:

"In the result, the whole order dated 13.07.2017, henceforth to be

reads as under:

"Keeping in view of this and to protect the interest of both the

parties, the respondent co. is expected to maintain status quo

as of today on its fixed assets and immovable property and not

to create third party interest thereon except its lease, rental

business and day to day routine works including lease of

immovable property along with any equipment, machinery,

furniture and fixtures."

Thus, the Misc. Application No. 146/2017 is allowed and accordingly

stands disposed of."

2. One of the grievances of the appellant is that he was not heard when the

order dated 13th July, 2017 was explained by the impugned order dated 2nd

August, 2017 but in view of the fact that the Tribunal has merely explained the

earlier interim order in the interest of the company and as no substantial change

has been made, we find no ground to remit the matter for hearing the case on

the question of passing another interim order. We hope that the main case will

be decided at an early date.

3. Parties should co-operate with the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed. No

cost.

[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[ Justice A.I.S. Cheema ] [ Balvinder Singh ] Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)

/ns/uk/

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free