Appellate jurisdiction in company petitions requires examination of later precedent before remand; bare remand without analysis is unsustainable.

An NCLAT remand of a company petition under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 was held unsustainable because the appellate forum was required to examine whether the later Supreme Court judgment in Tata Consultancy Services Limited v Cyrus Investments Private Limited affected the dispute on the facts before it. A bare remand without analysing the record or the extent of the later decision's relevance was treated as an abdication of appellate jurisdiction, and the remand order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of the NCLAT remanding the company petition to the NCLT without examining the impact of the later judgment in Tata Consultancy Services Limited v Cyrus Investments Private Limited was sustainable.

Analysis: The company petition under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 had been decided by the NCLT before the later judgment of the Supreme Court in Tata Consultancy Services Limited. The proper appellate course was for the NCLAT to examine the effect, if any, of that later decision on the controversy between the parties on the facts before it. A bare remand, without analysing the record or the extent to which the later decision applied, amounted to an abdication of appellate jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The remand order of the NCLAT was unsustainable and was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---