Mudasir Ahmed Khuroo vs Etn Services Private Limited

Mudasir Ahmed Khuroo ...Appellant(s)

Versus

ETN Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Akaant Kumar Mittal, Mr. Anant Singh, Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Mr. Arun Yadav, Mr. Shashank Shukla, Mr. Hrithik Parashar, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Varun Jain, Mr. Nikhil Fernandes, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

29.08.2025: This appeal against an impugned order dated 31.07.2025

passed by the Ld. NCLT, Chandigarh in CP No. 46/Chd/J&K/2025. It is the

submission of the Learned Counsel for the appellant, the appellant had filed

the Company Petition under Section 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013.

The impugned order notes the Ld. NCLT at that stage was not inclined to grant

the interim relief and it held the issue of interim relief shall be considered only

after the Respondent file a reply on limited issue and thus the notice was

issued.

2. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent was present before the Ld.

NCLT on 07.08.2025 and undertook to file reply on such limited issue of

interim relief. Thus 5 days time was granted to the Respondent to file a reply

with a copy in advance to the appellant's counsel.

3. However, it is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the appellant

instead of filing a reply, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent appeared -2-

before the Ld. NCLT on 07.08.2025 and alleged the parties are trying to have

settlement talks with the appellant herein and sought on adjournment and

hence instead of listing the matter for arguments on interim relief, the matter

was listed for further hearing on 16.10.2025. It is submitted in the meanwhile

Respondents are trying to appoint new directors as mentioned in

correspondence at page 249 of the Appeal Paper Book, viz a notice of board

meeting for business operations for appointment of new directors.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent appears through VC and

submits the said proposal stood postponed till hearing of the company

petition pending before the Ld. NCLT. Further issue was raised qua the

removal of the appellant as a director and to this effect the appellant had

referred to a notice dated 26.08.2025 (at page 250 of the Appeal Paper Book)

viz an "intimation of special notice received for proposed resolution seeking your

removal as director". The Learned Counsel for the Respondent on the other

hand submits the said notice only require the appellant to give a written

representation and in case the appellant has any grievance against the notice

dated 26.08.2025, he may file a separate appeal as the prayer in the company

petition does not cover this subsequent act.

5. In any case, since per the Learned Counsel for the Respondent the

notice dated 26.08.2025 only require a written representation to be filed by

the appellant and further since the prayer qua seeking injunction against

removal of appellant as a director is not a part of the company petition hence,

we are not inclined to pass any orders on this issue as it cannot be raised at

this stage. However, as the company petition is listed on 16.10.2025 at the -3-

asking of the Respondent, hence we prepone the said date so that the

argument on interim relief can be heard by the Ld. NCLT. Thus we request the

Ld. NCLT to list the matter as per its convenience, preferably in the second

week of September, 2025 on a mentioning to be made by the Learned

Counsel(s). The copy of reply filed by the Respondent before the Ld. NCLT be

supplied to the appellant. The Ld. NCLT to hear the argument of interim relief

and dispose it of such application as expeditiously as possible.

6. The appeal stands disposed of in terms of above. Pending application(s),

if any, are closed.

[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical)

R.N./Manu D.