Kerala High Court
Mr. Afdhel Abdul Wahab vs Mr. Pulikkal Veetil Abdul on 10 September, 2025
2025:KER:67258
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 19TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 33123 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 MR. AFDHEL ABDUL WAHAB
AGED 34 YEARS
INDUS MOTOR COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED BOX NO. 923, INDUS
HOUSE, CHAKKORATHUKILAM CALICUT, PIN - 673005
2 MR. AJMAL ABDUL WAHAB
AGED 36 YEARS
INDUS MOTOR COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED BOX NO. 923, INDUS
HOUSE, CHAKKORATHUKILAM CALICUT, PIN - 673005
BY ADVS.
SHRI.AKHIL SURESH
SMT.KALLIYANI KRISHNA B.
SHRI.AMRITH M.J.
SMT.ANITA ELIZEBETH BABU
SHRI.RAHUL T.
RESPONDENTS:
1 MR. PULIKKAL VEETIL ABDUL
WAHAB, INDUS MOTOR COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED BOX NO. 923,
INDUS HOUSE, CHAKKORATHUKILAM CALICUT, PIN - 673005
2 MR. JABER ABDUL WAHAB
INDUS MOTOR COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED BOX NO. 923, INDUS
HOUSE, CHAKKORATHUKILAM CALICUT, PIN - 673005
3 MR. JAVED ABDUL WAHAB
INDUS MOTOR COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED BOX NO. 923, INDUS
HOUSE, CHAKKORATHUKILAM CALICUT, PIN - 673005
4 MRS. YASMIN WAHAB
INDUS MOTOR COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED BOX NO. 923, INDUS
HOUSE, CHAKKORATHUKILAM CALICUT, PIN - 673005
WP(C) No.33123 of 2025 -2-
2025:KER:67258
5 MR. THOMAS KURUVILLA
INDUS MOTOR COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED BOX NO. 923,
INDUS HOUSE, CHAKKORATHUKILAM CALICUT, PIN - 673005
6 INDUS MOTOR COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: BOX NO. 923, INDUS
HOUSE, CHAKKORATHUKILAM CALICUT, PIN - 673005
7 MR. T.P. ANILKUMAR
310 NBQ, BANK STREET, DUBAI, UAE
8 MR. T.P. AJITHKUMAR
310 NBQ, BANK STREET, DUBAI, UAE
9 MRS. T.P. SARADA
ASHIRWAD, FLORICAN ROAD, CALICUT, PIN - 673009
10 MRS. ANJU MADHAV
EL-90, ELECTRONIC ZONE MIDC MAHAPE, NAVI MUMBAI, PIN
- 400710
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.33123 of 2025 -3-
2025:KER:67258
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of September, 2025
Above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P10 order dated
03.09.2025 in CP No.02/KOB/2020 passed by the NCLT, Kochi Bench.
Petitioners have also sought for an alternative relief directing the
NCLT, Kochi to issue a certified copy of Ext.P10 order within a time
limit to be fixed by this Court and to stay all further proceedings
pursuant to Ext.P10 for a period of 30 days from the date of issuance
of the certified copy of Ext.P10 order to enable the petitioners to
prefer a statutory appeal before the NCLAT.
2. Sr. Adv.Santhosh Mathew appeared for the petitioners,
and Sr.Adv. Joseph Kodiyathara for respondents 7 to 10. In the
nature of the order I propose to pass, notice to other respondents is
dispensed with.
3. Petitioners aver that they are the share holders as well as
Directors of Indus Motor Company Pvt. Ltd. They would contend that
Ext.P10 order was issued beyond the statutory limit of the NCLT's
jurisdiction and issued sweeping directions, including appointment of
an Administrator, imposition of financial restrictions, and
determinations as to disqualification and continuation of the
Directorship. Petitioners further submit that the reliefs claimed are
all barred by limitation, and, overlooking the same, it has been
2025:KER:67258
allowed as per Ext.P10. The learned Senior Counsel would further
submit that Ext.P10 order was issued on 03.09.2025 and they have
filed Ext.P11 application before the NCLT, Kochi Bench, for the
issuance of a certified copy of Ext.P10 so as to enable them to
challenge the same before the NCLAT. The learned Senior Counsel
would also submit that he is not arguing the matter on merits, since
there is an alternative remedy by way of an appeal against Ext.P10
and all what he requires is a breathing time to approach the NCLAT
by filing an appeal challenging Ext.P10 and in the meanwhile if
Ext.P10 order is implemented, petitioners will be put to serious
prejudice. It is also submitted that for numbering the appeal before
the NCLAT, there is always a delay to comply with the procedural
formalities, and further that though a certified copy was applied for
as per Ext.P11, the same has not been issued to the petitioners yet.
It is also contended that the petitioners have 45 days time to file an
appeal, going by the Statute.
4. On the contrary the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the respondents 7 to 10 would submit that Ext.P10 order cannot be
challenged in a writ petition inasmuch as the petitioners have an
alternative remedy of an appeal, and further that there is absolutely
no case for the petitioners that NCLT has no jurisdiction to issue an
order in the nature of Ext.P10 and therefore, the writ petition is only
2025:KER:67258
to be dismissed, relegating the petitioners to avail the appellate
remedy available under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013. He
would further submit that there are serious findings against the
petitioners in Ext.P10 regarding mismanagement and their
competency to continue as Directors. The learned Senior Counsel
relied on the judgments in P.K. Prathapan v. Dale & Carrington
Investments (P.) Ltd. [MANU/KE/0211/2002]; Dale &
Carrington Investments (P.) Ltd. v. Prathapan [2004 KHC
1156]; Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Tata Sons
Ltd. and Others [MANU/NC/0006/2017]; Shailaja Krishna v.
Satori Global Limited and Others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1889]
in support of his contentions.
5. I have considered the rival contentions on both sides.
6. Since an alternative remedy of appeal is provided as per
the statute to challenge Ext P10, I am not inclined to go into the rival
contentions raised by both sides on merits, and to entertain a
challenge against Ext.P10 order. The petitioners have limited their
relief only for a direction to the NCLT to issue a certified copy of
Ext.P10 within a time limit to be fixed by this Court and to provide
them a breathing time so as to enable them to approach the NCLAT
in appeal.
Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I
2025:KER:67258
am inclined to dispose of the writ petition as follows:-
1. The National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench, shall issue a
certified copy of Ext.P10 order to the petitioners, at the earliest,
at any rate within an outer limit of seven days from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
2. All further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P10 shall be kept in
abeyance for a period of 2 weeks from the date of issuance of
the certified copy of Ext.P10, so as to enable the petitioners to
prefer a statutory appeal before the NCLAT.
3. It is made clear that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P10 is
directed to be kept in abeyance for a period of 2 weeks, as
stated above, is only to enable the petitioners to prefer a
statutory appeal before the NCLAT, and that this Court has not
considered any of the contentions raised by both sides on
merits, which are matters to be considered and adjudicated by
the NCLAT in the appeal to be preferred by the petitioners
challenging Ext.P10 order.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
sbk/-
2025:KER:67258
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33123/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P-1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPANY PETITION
(WITHOUT ANNEXURES)
Exhibit P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE INITIAL INTERIM ORDER
DATED 17.01.2020 IN COMPANY
PETITION/02/KOB/2020
Exhibit P-2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
21.04.2021 IN COMPANY PETITION/02/KOB/2020
Exhibit P-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXHIBIT-P1
COMPANY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS
AND RESPONDENT 1-4 (WITHOUT, ANNEXURES)
Exhibit P-4 A TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER FILED ON BEHALF
OF THE RESPONDENTS 7-10 TO THE REPLY FILED
BY THE PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENT 1-4
(WITHOUT, ANNEXURES)
Exhibit P-5 A TRUE COPY OF THE SUR-REJOINDER FILED BY
THE RESPONDENTS 7-10 (WITHOUT, ANNEXURES)
Exhibit P-6 A TRUE COPY OF IA(C/ACT)17/KOB/2025 DATED
11.02.2025 (WITHOUT ANNEXURES)
Exhibit P-7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2025
Exhibit P-8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN OP(C)
Exhibit P-9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE IA(C/ACT)
17/KOB/2025
Exhibit P-10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.09.2025
IN CP/02/KOB/2020
Exhibit P-11 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY
APPLICATION DATED 04.09.2025 FILED BEFORE
THE NCLT
