NCLT interim injunction set aside for lack of reasoning and violating natural justice principles

Karnataka HC set aside NCLT's interim injunction order against petitioners for being unreasoned and non-speaking. The NCLT failed to consider the triple test for interim injunctions (prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury) and violated principles of natural justice by not providing adequate reasons. Despite respondents' argument that appeal under Section 421 of Companies Act, 2013 was available, HC held that violation of natural justice principles warranted intervention under Articles 226 and 227. Matter remitted to NCLT for fresh consideration with proper reasoning.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the NCLT's impugned order dated 12.06.2024 granting injunction.
2. Alleged violation of undertaking and interim order dated 27.02.2024 by the petitioners.
3. Necessity of a reasoned and speaking order by the NCLT.
4. Availability of alternative remedy and maintainability of the writ petition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the NCLT's Impugned Order:
The petitioners contended that the NCLT's order was "cryptic and nonspeaking," granting an injunction without assigning reasons. The NCLT deferred consideration of other applications (C.A.No.72/2024 and C.A.No.76/2024) but allowed C.A.No.71/2024 without addressing the triple test for interim injunction: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The High Court found that the impugned order lacked detailed reasoning and failed to consider the material on record, making it a non-speaking and unreasoned order. Consequently, the order was set aside.

2. Alleged Violation of Undertaking and Interim Order:
Respondents argued that the petitioners violated the undertaking and interim order dated 27.02.2024, which was confirmed by the NCLT. The respondents had initiated contempt proceedings and filed C.A.No.72/2024 against the petitioners. The NCLT noted these allegations but deferred their consideration. The High Court observed that the NCLT should have adjudicated these issues before granting the injunction. Since the contempt petition and C.A.No.72/2024 were pending, the High Court found it inappropriate to uphold the injunction based on disputed allegations.

3. Necessity of a Reasoned and Speaking Order:
The High Court emphasized the need for a reasoned and speaking order, citing several Supreme Court judgments. The NCLT's order was found to be lacking in detailed reasoning, violating principles of natural justice. The High Court highlighted that the NCLT failed to provide a substantive analysis of the issues, making the order unsustainable. The High Court reiterated that judicial orders must contain a narration of facts, issues, submissions, legal principles, and reasons for the findings.

4. Availability of Alternative Remedy and Maintainability:
Respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013. However, the High Court held that the violation of principles of natural justice in the NCLT's order justified the exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court noted that the impugned order was a final order on C.A.No.71/2024, despite respondents' contention that it was an ad-interim order.

Conclusion:
The High Court set aside the NCLT's impugned order dated 12.06.2024 and remitted the matter back to the NCLT for reconsideration of C.A.No.71/2024 afresh. The NCLT was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order within two weeks from 04.07.2024. All rival contentions were kept open, and no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case.

---