TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 518
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ms. Sonam Gupta, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Aditya Chatterjee and Mr. NityaKalyani, Advocate for R-1&8 Mr. Udaya Holla, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Neha Mathen, Advocates for R- 2 to 6. Ms. Anuradha Agnihotri, Advocate ORDER Jarat Kumar Jain , J The Appellant Macquarie SBI Infrastructure Investment Pvt. Ltd. filed the Appeal CA(AT) No. 134 of 2020 against the order dated 16.06.2020 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, (In Brief Tribunal) Bangaluru Bench, Bangaluru. Whereby seven interim Applications Nos. 179, 180,181, 182, 183, 184 and 189 of 2020 in CP No. 78/BB/2020 filed by the Appellants have been disposed of summarily. The Appellants have filed another Appeal CA (AT) 135 of 2020 against the order dated 16.06.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m application (s) can be filed later on, if any, new developments takes place in the case and there is any urgency in the matter. Since the case is coming for admission for the first time and the Respondents requested time for filing their Replies to main/interim reliefs sought for, separate applications are not maintainable. Moreover, the pleadings and prayers made in the above applications are more or less covered under the reliefs sought for in the main Company Petition, therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the above IAs separately and thus, to dispose of all the IAs by granting liberty to applicants to seek appropriate interim as asked for in the main petition, on the next date of hearing, after filing Replies by the Respondents"....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd and not appreciating the extraordinary circumstances and urgency for consideration of the Interlocutory Applications. Thus, the impugned order passed in CP No. 78/BB/2020 is erroneous and liable to be dismissed and direction be issued to the Tribunal for considering the applications and to pass the order on merit. 7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 submitted that the Appellants have failed to make out any prejudice caused to them due to the impugned order. The prayers set out in the interlocutory applications are entirely covered by the reliefs sought by the Appellants under the para 44 of the main petition. The tribunal has listed the matter for consideration of interim reliefs on 10.07.2020 instead of pursuing their i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction about the maintainability of the interlocutory applications whereas they requested time for filing their replies to the main/interim reliefs sought for. 12. The Tribunal has adopted an unusual procedure and disposed of interim applications without any legal foundation. It is very strange that on one hand the Tribunal has disposed of interlocutory applications as not maintainable before admission of the Petition and on the other hand, without admitting the Petition the matter was posted for consideration of interim reliefs. 13. With the aforesaid, we are of the view that the impugned order is not inconsonance with the provisions of Act and Rules. Thus, the impugned order passed in CP No. 78/BB/2020 is set aside and aforesaid IA's....