Appeal challenges tribunal's procedural order, citing discrimination and lack of legal basis. Order partially set aside.

The appeal was filed against the National Company Law Tribunal's order disposing of interim applications before admitting the main petition. The Appellant argued that there was no legal requirement for such a procedure and highlighted discriminatory treatment. The Tribunal's order was deemed irregular and lacking legal foundation. One petition's order was set aside, restoring the interlocutory applications for further consideration, while the other order was upheld. The Tribunal was directed to expedite the process and communicate the decision promptly.

---

---

Issues:
1. Admissibility of interim applications before the admission of the main petition.
2. Discriminatory treatment in the adjudication of petitions.
3. Legal foundation for disposing of interim applications.
4. Maintainability of interlocutory applications.
5. Procedure for regulating the conduct of the company's affairs.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant filed an appeal against the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, challenging the disposal of seven interim applications and seeking various reliefs under Sections 241 & 242 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal disposed of the applications summarily, citing that separate interim applications can be filed after the admission of the main case. The Appellant argued that this procedure was not legally mandated and discriminatory treatment was meted out as the Respondent's petition was admitted for final hearing while theirs was deferred without any plea on maintainability.

2. The Appellant contended that there is no provision in the Act or NCLT Rules stipulating that interim applications can only be filed post the admission of the main petition. The Tribunal's order was criticized for being self-contradictory and inconsistent, as it disposed of the interlocutory applications but proceeded to list the matter for consideration of interim reliefs without admitting the petition for final hearing. The Appellant emphasized the urgency and extraordinary circumstances necessitating the consideration of the interlocutory applications.

3. The Tribunal's disposal of the interim applications without a legal foundation was highlighted as irregular. The absence of objections from the Respondents regarding the maintainability of the interlocutory applications was noted. The Tribunal's unconventional procedure of disposing of the applications before admission of the petition was deemed questionable, leading to the conclusion that the impugned order was not in line with the provisions of the Act and Rules.

4. Consequently, the impugned order in one petition was set aside, and the interlocutory applications were restored for further consideration by the Tribunal with a directive to provide a reasonable opportunity to the parties. However, the order in the other petition was found to be appropriate, warranting no interference. The Tribunal was urged to expedite the decision-making process, and the Registry was instructed to promptly communicate the order to the concerned Tribunal for action.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal intricacies surrounding the admissibility of interim applications, discriminatory treatment in adjudication, the necessity of a legal foundation for disposing of applications, and the procedural aspects governing the conduct of a company's affairs under the Companies Act, 2013.

---