Court emphasizes the necessity of maintaining status quo in corporate disputes to prevent oppression until the Tribunal resolves the matters.

ORDER :

B.M. SHYAM PRASAD, J.

The petitioners are Doctors and are shareholders of the first respondent. There are disputes amongst them over the management of the first respondent. The petitioners have approached the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal'] with their application in CP No.125/BB/2025 alleging oppression and mismanagement by the second to fifth respondents with a request for interim order as against the removal of the first petitioner as a Director of the first respondent. The petitioners have also availed remedy under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in O.S. No. 974/2025.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court with this petition contending that they could not have availed the appellate remedy with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal against the Tribunal's order dated 25.09.2025 because a copy thereof was not available. This Court, on 03.10.2025, in the light of this assertion and the petitioners' case that after the date of application with the Tribunal, an Extraordinary General Body Meeting is scheduled on 03.10.2025, has observed, refusing to interfere with the Meeting scheduled on 03.10.2025, that the outcome in the meeting shall be subject to the result of the pending proceedings with the Tribunal and that the second to fifth respondents shall not give effect to the resolution in the meeting until order is passed by the Tribunal on the application.

3. Sri A Murali, the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Harish Byrasandra Narasappa, the learned Senior counsel for the respondents, are categorical that on the following:

[a] The petitioners, upon receipt of a copy of the Tribunal's Order dated 25.09.2025, have filed an appeal with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and that this appeal is also dismissed;

[b] In the interregnum, the petitioners have filed an application with the Tribunal calling in question the convening of the Extraordinary General Body Meeting and the Resolution in such meeting.

[c] This application is pending, and the Tribunal has scheduled a hearing on this application in February 2026 with liberty to the parties to complete their pleadings by then;

[d] The Resolution in the Extraordinary General Body Meeting on 03.10.2025 is for removal of the first petitioner as a Director of the first respondent, and information of this Resolution is filed with the Registrar of Companies [ROC] but the ROC, in due deference to this Court's Order dated 03.10.2025, has not struck off the first petitioner's name from the first respondent's Board.

4. Sri A Murali submits that this Court may continue the interim arrangement until the Tribunal's decision on the pending application as against the convening of the Extraordinary General Body Meeting and the resolution because the petitioners' cause, as recorded by this Court, is still to be considered by the Tribunal. However, Sri Harish B Narasappa submits that this Court had extended protection against implementing the Resolution because the petitioners contended that they had not received a copy of the Tribunal's order dated 25.09.2025 but with even the petitioners' appeal against that order being dismissed, there would be no cause for continuance of the protection.

5. Sri Harish B Narasappa emphasizes that if the petitioners succeeded in their application, the Tribunal could grant restitution. When queried, the learned Senior Counsel places on record that the relationship between the petitioners and the second to fifth respondents has turned acrimonious with some complaints also being lodged with the Karnataka Medical Council against the second respondent and police complaints against the third respondent. This Court has considered all the circumstances, including that most of the petitioners and the respon