Recently, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal disposed of the Company Appeals, concerning an impugned order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dated 20.11.2024. The appeals challenged the interim order directing the Respondents not to give effect to a resolution if passed at the Extra-Ordinary General Meeting (EMG) scheduled for that date. The Tribunal emphasised the importance of assigning reasons for interim orders, particularly in cases affecting the rights of the parties involved.
Brief Facts:
The case revolved around proceedings under Section 214/242 of the Companies Act, 2013, initiated through Company Application No. 154/2024. The Respondents sought an interim order against holding the 65th EGM, specifically concerning Agenda Item 8. The Tribunal’s interim order on 20.11.2024 prevented the Respondents from implementing the resolution if passed during the EGM. The matter was then taken to the Karnataka High Court, where on 25.11.2024, the order was modified, and the parties were directed to approach the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant challenged the NCLT’s interim order, contending that the Tribunal had failed to assign reasons for granting the injunction, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The Appellant argued that the absence of reasoning for denying the injunction deprived them of a fair opportunity to present their objections. Citing judgements like Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund V. Kartick Das and Secretary & Curator Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity, the appellant emphasised that a Courtmust provide reasons when granting or denying an interim order to ensure transparency and fairness in judicial proceedings.
Observation of the Court:
The Tribunal acknowledged the importance of assigning reasons when granting or denying interim orders, stating that it is crucial for ensuring legal propriety and the protection of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the NCLT had failed to adequately address the Appellant’s objections and did not provide sufficient reasoning for the decision to grant the interim protection. The Tribunal further observed that fairness demands that both parties be allowed to present their arguments fully before the granting of interim relief, which was not the case here. In its analysis, the Tribunal refrained from making a detailed assessment of the NCLT’s order and its implications. However, it emphasised that the assignment of reasons is a fundamental judicial requirement that ensures transparency and accountability. It also clarified that the NCLT must adhere to these principles when passing any interim orders in the future.
The Tribunal also noted that the matter had been taken to the Hon’ble Apex Court, which had disposed of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) on 29.11.2024, maintaining the status quo until the matter was decided by the NCLAT. The Apex Court’s judgment included an interim direction that no resolution should be implemented until the first hearing before the NCLAT.
The decision of the Tribunal:
The Tribunal disposed of the appeals, allowing the Appellant to file a Stay Vacation Application before the Appellant to file a Stay Vacation Application before the NCLT within one week. The NCLT was directed to consider the application, addressing all the arguments raised by the parties, including those in the current appeal. The Tribunal further instructed that the Stay Vacation Application be decided within three weeks, with reasons to be provided for the decision. It was made clear that the observations in the Tribunal’s order would not affect the NCLT’s decision on the Stay Vacation Application. The interim status as per the Apex Court’s order, would continue until the NCLT made its decision.
Case Title: Manipal Health Systems Private Limited v. Singapore VII Topco I Pte. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.81/2024 with Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No.82/2024
Coram: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Member, Judicial), Jatindranath Swain (Member, Technical)
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. R. Murari (Sr. Advocate), AR Ramanathan, S. Sriraman
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. PS Raman (Sr. Advocate), R. Parthasarathy (Sr. Advocate), P. Giridharan, C. Thiagarajan
Picture Source :
