Shibu John vs Transmarine Services India P. Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (CH) No.02/2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The impugned order, being an interlocutory arrangement made while the company petition is still pending and which does not adjudicate any right of the parties or the lis itself, is not an appealable adjudication; the appropriate remedy against such an order is an application for its clarification before the Adjudicating Authority, which will consider it in light of subsequent orders passed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
4. Transmarine Cargo Services P. Ltd. 7B, Raintree place, McNicolas road, Chetpet, Chennai 600031 ...Appellants V 1. Transmarine Services India P. Ltd. 809, Ega Trade Centre, 9A, 9th Floor, Poonamlee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600010
2. Sherry Jose 3B, Gee Gee Victoria,No. 1 Mayor Chitti Babu Street, Chetpet, Chennai 600031
3. Jose Varghese, 3B, gee Gee Victoria, No.1 Mayor Chitti Babu Street, Chetpet, Chennai, 600031
4. Nandakumar Narayanan, 1A, Fern Aristocrat Marudu P.O., Kannadikadu, Cochin- 682304
Comp App (AT) (CH) No.02/2022 Page 1 of 3 5. Sreevidya Nandakumar, 1A Fern Aristocrat Marudu P.Ο., Kannadikadu Cochin-682304 ...Respondents Present : For Appellants : Mr. Kalyan Jhabakh, Advocate Ms. Chinna Abraham, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. N.P. Vijayakumar & R. Pradeep, Advocates for R2 & R3
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 23.10.2024:
The appellants have preferred this company appeal, putting a challenge to
the Impugned Order dated 08.09.2021, as it was rendered in an Interlocutory
Application, being IA No. 1082/2020 in CP/1262/2019, Shibu John of M/s.
Transmarine Services India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sherry Jose and 4 Ors. In the
proceedings which were being held under Sections 241 & 242 and are still
pending consideration and yet to be adjudicated on merits.
On examination of the impugned order which is under challenge and
particularly the conclusion which has been derived at by the Ld. Adjudicating
Authority, it is seen that the order takes the shape of an interlocutory order, as it
was not deciding any right of any of the parties or the lis itself, and was only
making an arrangement at the stage when the company petition itself was being
considered. Since this order will not take the shape of an adjudication of a dispute,
the appropriate recourse available to the appellant would be to file an application
for clarification of the impugned order, before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority,
Comp App (AT) (CH) No.02/2022 Page 2 of 3 which would then consider the same in accordance with law and as of now, in the
light of subsequent orders passed by it. Subject to the above, the Company Appeal
stands 'Closed'.
[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)
[Jatindranath Swain] Member (Technical)
SN/TM/MS
Comp App (AT) (CH) No.02/2022 Page 3 of 3
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