Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 48865
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
MR. AFDHEL ABDUL WAHAB – Appellant
Versus
MR. PULIKKAL VEETIL ABDUL WAHAB – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 33123 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.AKHIL SURESH, SMT.KALLIYANI KRISHNA B., SHRI.AMRITH M.J., SMT.ANITA ELIZEBETH BABU, SHRI.RAHUL T.
For the Respondents: SR.ADV. JOSEPH KODIYATHARA
Judicial review is limited when an alternative remedy exists; courts should refrain from assessing merits in such cases.
Headnote:(A) Companies Act, 2013 - Section 421 - Challenge to NCLT order - Petition filed challenging the order on grounds of exceeding jurisdiction and issuing sweeping directions - Court held alternative remedy of appeal available; therefore, it refrained from assessing merits. (Paras 6, 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, directors of the company, challenged an NCLT order overseeing management issues, claiming it breached jurisdictional limits. The petition also sought delayed issuance of the order and a stay on its consequences.
Findings of Court:
The court mandated the NCLT to issue a certified copy of the order within seven days and suspended all subsequent proceedings for two weeks to allow the petitioners to appeal.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the NCLT regarding orders and the need for procedural compliance for appeals was central to the court's consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that alternative remedies should be exhausted before judicial intervention and declined to assess the challenge against the substantive merits of the NCLT's decision.
Result: Writ petition disposed of, and NCLT directives were temporarily stayed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments on the necessity of an alternative remedy. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. challenging jurisdictional authority of nclt. (Para 3) |
| 3. decision on issuing certified copies and staying proceedings. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of September, 2025 Above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P10 order dated
03.09.2025 in CP No.02/KOB/2020 passed by the NCLT, Kochi Bench. Petitioners have also sought for an alternative relief directing the NCLT, Kochi to issue a certified copy of Ext.P10 order within a time limit to be fixed by this Court and to stay all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P10 for a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of the certified copy of Ext.P10 order to enable the petitioners to prefer a statutory appeal before the NCLAT.
2. Sr. Adv.Santhosh Mathew appeared for the petitioners, and Sr.Adv. Joseph Kodiyathara for respondents 7 to 10. In the nature of the order I propose to pass, notice to other respondents is dispensed with.
3. Petitioners aver that they are the share holders as well as Directors of Indus Motor Company Pvt. Ltd. They would contend that Ext.P10 order was issued beyond the statutory limit of the NCLT’s jurisdiction and issued sweeping directions, including appointment of an Administrator, imposition of financial restrictions, and determinations as to disqualification and continuation of the Directorship. Petitioners further submit that the reliefs claimed are all barred by limitation, and, overlooking the same, it has been allowed as per Ext.P10. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that Ext.P10 order was issued on 03.09.2025 and they have filed Ext.P11 application before the NCLT, Kochi Bench, for the issuance of a certified copy of Ext.P10 so as to enable them to challenge the same before the NCLAT. The learned Senior Counsel would also submit that he is not arguing the matter on merits, since there is an alternative remedy by way of an appeal against Ext.P10 and all what he requires is a breathing time to approach the NCLAT by filing an appeal challenging Ext.P10 and in the meanwhile if Ext.P10 order is implemented, petitioners will be put to serious prejudice. It is also submitted that for numbering the appeal before the NCLAT, there is always a delay to comply with the procedural formalities, and further that though a certified copy was applied for as per Ext.P11, the same has not been issued to the petitioners yet. It is also contended that the petitioners have 45 days time to file an appeal, going by the Statute.
4. On the contrary the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 7 to 10 would submit that Ext.P10 order cannot be challenged in a writ petition inasmuch as the petitioners have an alternative remedy of an appeal, and further that there is absolutely no case for the petitioners that NCLT has no jurisdiction to issue an order in the nature of Ext.P10 and therefore, the writ petition is only to be dismissed, relegating the petitioners to avail the appellate remedy available under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 . He would further submit that there are serious findings against the petitioners in Ext.P10 regarding mismanagement and their competency to continue as Directors. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgments inP.K. Prathapan v. Dale & Carrington Investments (P.) Ltd. [MANU/KE/0211/2002];Dale & Carrington Investments (P.) Ltd. v. Prathapan [2004 KHC 1156];Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Tata Sons Ltd. and Others [MANU/NC/0006/2017]; Shailaja Krishna v. Satori Global Limited and Others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1889]
in support of his contentions.
5. I have considered the rival contentions on both sides.
6. Since an alternative remedy of appeal is provided as per the statute to challenge Ext P10, I am not inclined to go into the rival contentions raised by both sides on merits, and to entertain a challenge against Ext.P10 order. The petitioners have limited their relief only for a direction to the NCLT to issue a
