The necessity of reasoned orders in judicial proceedings is mandated, as a non-speaking order is void and impacts the legality of such decisions.

Judgment :

Aniruddha Roy, J.

1. Mr. Jishnu Saha, learned senior counsel appears for the plaintiff/opposite party in C.O. 3767 of 2025.

2. Mr. Jay Saha, learned counsel appears for the plaintiff/opposite party in C.O. 3767 of 2025.

3. Both being the plaintiffs in these two applications filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India submit that both these applications arose from the same impugned order passed by the civil court in the same civil suit.

4. Opposite parties are also represented by various learned counsel namely, Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shaunak Mitra, Adv., Mr. Anirban Ray, Sr. adv., led by Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, Sr. Adv. (VC), Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Sr. Adv.

5. All the learned advocates and the respective parties have agreed that both these applications can be taken up together and can be considered by a single composite order.

6. Hence both the applications are taken up together for consideration.

7. These are applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein an ex parte ad interim order dated September 25, 2025 has been assailed passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 1^st Court, Alipore, South 24 parganas (for short Civil court).

8. The plaint filed before the civil court is available at page 31 to the instant application being annexure B thereto, the reliefs are available at pages 67. Referring to the plaint case made out by the plaintiff, Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, learned senior counsel with Mr. Anirban Ray, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in C.O. 3756 of 2025 (first revisional application) being defendant nos. 6 to 9 in the civil suit, submits that on a plain reading of the averments in the plaint, it appears that a shareholder action has been converted into a civil suit, despite there being specific statutory provisions and remedies under Sections 241 ,242 and 244 of the Companies Act (for short Companies Act). Section 430 of the Companies Act provides for an exclusive jurisdiction before the jurisdictional NCLT and the said provision also bars filing of civil suit and passing an order of injunction in such an action.

9. Leaned senior counsel in the light of above, submits that civil suit filed before the civil court being barred by law the ad interim ex parte order should not have been passed and as such, the same is not only illegal and wrongful but also without jurisdiction.

10. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that since it was ad interim order of ex parte injunction and the same was moved behind the back of the petitioner, the petitioner could not have the opportunity to urge the jurisdictional issue before the civil court with regard to the maintainability of the civil suit.

11. The second plea taken by the petitioner referring to the impugned ad interim ex parte order that the same is a grossly non-speaking order and no reasons have been ascribed thereto as to why the civil court has drastically passed the ad interim ex parte order as will be evident of the said impugned order. A non speaking order is a nullity.

12. Mr. Banerjee, then submits that since the appellate forum before the civil court is not available during the vacation and since there is a gross jurisdictional error on the face of the order impugned, the petitioners have applied before this court invoking Article 227 of the constitution of India. If the impugned order is a nullity and without jurisdiction and suffers from gross irregularity and infirmity, which is apparent on the face of it, straightway an application under Article 227 is maintainable.

13. In support, learned co