TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the Petitioner through its authorized representative(s) to inspect the register of members and other records including Financial records, bank statements etc. of Respondent No. 1 and take copies thereof in accordance with the provisions of Companies Act, 2013; b) Direct the Respondent Nos. I to 3 to give notice of meeting of Shareholders/Annual General Meeting to the Petitioner which may be scheduled to be held in accordance with the Companies Act, 2013 and to permit the Petitioner to participate in the said meetings; c) Restrain Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 from selling, transferring, mortgaging or in any manner alienating or creating any third-party interest on the moveable and immoveable assets of Respondent No.1 Company. d) Restrain the Respondent Nos. I to 3 from changing the capital structure of the Respondent No. 1 and from allotting any new Shares etc.; e) Direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to place on record the complete list of all meetings of members/shareholders of the Respondent No. along with the respective resolutions, attendance register, notices of meetings along with proof of service on the respective members/shareholders and restrai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve shareholding pattern, which was even the case of the Respondent in I.A. No. 19 of 2021, the number of shares shown to be held by the Respondent, was shown to be zero. In that eventuality, it is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that, if it is the own case of the Respondent that they were holding 0 per cent of shares, in that eventuality, their Interlocutory Application, being I.A. No. 19/2021, would not be maintainable. That being, so particularly, when in the proceedings under the Company Petition under Sections 241 and 242, the Respondent had not sought any waiver under Section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013 and when the Company Petition itself is not maintainable, in that eventuality, the application for the grant of interim relief in a proceeding of the Company Petition, which is otherwise not maintainable under law at the behest of the Respondent, the interim prayer too would not be maintainable. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that though the impugned order is of an interlocutory nature, but yet it is flawed under law for the reason that the Tribunal has proceeded to pass an interlocutory order granting the interim relief that, was prayed fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is reasoning assigned by the Tribunal for grant of the interim order, which may be even because of non-filing of the Reply in the Company Petition, that itself may not be an exclusive ground to grant interim relief by a non reasoned order. (ii) Grant of an interim relief, and that too particularly when it affects the material rights of the parties to the proceedings, even if at all there was any justification to pass any interim order, then the Tribunal, being an adjudicatory body, even at the interim stage, ought to have assigned reasons after considering the pleadings raised in the application, even if taken for granted that there was no Reply submitted by the Appellant. 5. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. Upon considering the pleadings raised in Para 6 of I.A. No. 19/2021, where it is an admitted case of the Respondent itself that they were holding zero per cent of shares and, as such, if that is the situation, then in the light of the provisions contained under Sections 244 of the Companies Act, the application at the behest of the Respondent would not be maintainable particularly when the principal proceeding under Section 241 and 242 of Companies Act itself ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot be an exclusive ground to grant an interim relief without adopting a rational view of calling for a Reply from the Appellant and then only to consider and to pass an appropriate order on I.A. No. 19/2021. Having not done so, that would vitiate the order in itself. 8. There could be yet an another facet which is required to be considered that the basic governing principle of adjudication of justice is that any order, which is passed by the Tribunal on its judicial side has had to be attached with reasons for accepting or rejecting the stand taken by the parties to the proceedings before it. Even it is presumed that the Appellant has not filed any reply before the Appellate Tribunal, then too it was procedurally incumbent in the process of justice dispensation system that, any order which is passed by the Tribunal affecting rights of the parties on merits of the application that is I.A. No. 19/2021, then it was mandatory on part of the Learned Tribunal that it ought to have assigned reasons to justify passing of the interim order and particularly to the nature of the interim order as prayed for in I.A. No. 19/2021, it should have been only after assigning reasons. In the absenc....