Court permits financial transactions pending NCLT/NCLAT orders. Practical challenges considered. Restrictions imposed.

The Court allowed the writ petitions challenging the NCLT's ex parte interim order, permitting the petitioners to conduct essential financial transactions until further orders from NCLT or NCLAT. Despite objections on maintainability without NCLT as a party, the Court considered the practical challenges faced by the petitioners in filing an appeal and the impact of NCLT's order on company operations. Restrictions were imposed on certain financial activities, with future transactions subject to orders from NCLT or NCLAT.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging ex parte interim order by NCLT, Cochin; Restraining Managing Director's powers; Financial transactions interdicted; Maintainability of writ petitions without NCLT as a party; Accessibility issues for appeal filing before NCLAT; Allegations of abuse of court process.

Analysis:
The writ petitions were filed challenging an ex parte interim order by the NCLT, Cochin, which restrained the Managing Director from exercising powers and interdicted financial transactions until a specified date. The petitioners, running companies with ongoing disputes among family shareholders, argued that the NCLT's actions brought the company to a standstill without justification or proper hearing. The petitioners faced difficulties in filing an appeal before the NCLAT due to restrictions and the pandemic situation, rendering it practically impossible.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection, contending that the writ petitions were not maintainable without the NCLT being a party and citing precedents emphasizing the necessity of including both the tribunal and parties in such cases. They argued that an appeal to the NCLAT was an efficacious alternate remedy, making the writ petitions inappropriate. The respondents also claimed that the Managing Director had been removed as per a resolution, and the current petition was an abuse of court process.

After hearing both sides, the Court acknowledged the pending company petitions before the NCLT and the practical challenges faced by the petitioners in filing an appeal before the NCLAT. Despite objections regarding the absence of NCLT as a party, the Court found that the peculiar circumstances warranted consideration of the writ petitions. The Court decided that, due to the prevailing situation and the inability to practically file an appeal, the petitioners should be allowed to conduct essential day-to-day financial transactions for company operations. However, restrictions were imposed on conducting general body meetings and withdrawing amounts from company accounts, with further financial transactions subject to future orders from either the NCLT or the NCLAT.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the writ petitions, permitting the petitioners to carry out necessary financial transactions until further orders are passed by the NCLT or the NCLAT, considering the practical challenges faced in filing an appeal and the impact of the NCLT's order on the company's operations.

---