https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95755 In proceedings under ss. 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013, the dominant issue was whether an interim stay order was vitiated for want of reasons. It was held that an interim order under Rules 11 and 32 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 is discretionary, requires only prima facie satisfaction, and is not a merits adjudication warranting elaborate reasoning; moreover, the order was passed after hearing and was not ex parte, and the cited sentencing jurisprudence was inapplicable. The appellant was relegated to seek relief by filing a stay-vacation application before the tribunal, and the appeals were dismissed for lack of merit. - NCLAT en-us Tue, 06 Jan 2026 08:47:38 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2026 08:48:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95755 In proceedings under ss. 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013, the dominant issue was whether an interim stay order was vitiated for want of reasons. It was held that an interim order under Rules 11 and 32 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 is discretionary, requires only prima facie satisfaction, and is not a merits adjudication warranting elaborate reasoning; moreover, the order was passed after hearing and was not ex parte, and the cited sentencing jurisprudence was inapplicable. The appellant was relegated to seek relief by filing a stay-vacation application before the tribunal, and the appeals were dismissed for lack of merit. - NCLAT Highlights Companies Law Tue, 06 Jan 2026 08:47:38 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95755