Satish Coomar Bagrodia Huf & Ors vs Kailashpati Vinimay Private Limited & ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 227 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The NCLT's interlocutory order that merely defers hearing of an interim-relief application pending the other side's reply, and fixes a further date, is not an order that can be appealed under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 in any way that warrants this Tribunal's interference; a party who challenges such an innocuous deferral without awaiting the date fixed by the Tribunal below cannot be permitted to invoke the appellate jurisdiction in haste, since entertaining such appeals would open a flood of appeals and impede the adjudication of substantive issues.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Satish Coomar Bagrodia HUF & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Kailashpati Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sajeve Deora, Mr. Harsh Gurbani, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Varsha Himatsingka, Mr. Akhil Anand, Mr. Himanshu Vij, Mr. Naman Singh Bagga, Advocates for R-1, 4, 5. Mr. Shalin Arthwan, Advocate for R-2, 3 & 7. ORDER
20.12.2022: Heard Mr. Sajeve Deora, Ld. Counsel along with Mr. Harsh
Gurbai, Ld. Counsel for the Appellants as well as Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Ld.
Sr. Counsel assisted by Ms. Varsha Himatsingka, Ld. Counsel for the
Respondents.
The present appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 has
been preferred against an innocuous order i.e. order dated 29.09.2022,
whereby the Ld. NCLT on an application filed on behalf of the Appellant for
granting interim relief in a Petition filed under Section 241-242 of the
Companies Act, 2013, only deferred the hearing awaiting reply by the other
side. By the impugned order next date was fixed to 18.11.2022. However, just
one day prior to the date fixed before the NCLT the present appeal was
presented before this tribunal.
-2-
We are of the opinion that since the Ld. Tribunal had already adjourned
the matter awaiting reply the Appellant in any event was not required to come
before this tribunal in such haste. If we start entertaining such type of appeal
there would be flood of appeal in this tribunal and it would be difficult for us to
adjudicate real issue. In such view of the matter we are of the opinion that
there is no need to pass any favourable order.
The Appeal stands disposed of. However, it goes without saying that Ld.
NCLT may consider to examine the interim relief, if pressed by the Appellant
and decide the same expeditiously.
[Justice Rakesh Kumar] Member (Judicial)
[Dr. Alok Srivasatava] Member (Technical)
sr/gc
Company Appeal (AT) No. 227 of 2022 & I.A. No. 4795 of 2022
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