The Court directed that pending a NCLT decision, a petition should be considered without delay despite ongoing mediation.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29^th day of January, 2026

1. The Petitioner is a Company represented by its Director, Babu Joseph, before this Court. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking direction to the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 Banks to de-freeze the accounts of the Petitioner maintained by the Petitioner Company with them.

2. I heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri.

Shinu J. Pillai, the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri. Sunil Shankar, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3, Sri. A.S.P. Kurup, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4, Sri. Jacob Sebastian, and the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 and

6, Sri.Saji Issac.

3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that there is no order restraining the operation of the Petitioner’s account by any Court. In the absence of any such order, the Banks could not freeze the operation of the accounts on the mere Communications issued by the Respondent Nos.5 and 6. The learned Counsel invited my attention to Ext.P5 Order of this Court in a Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner represented by the said Babu Joseph, in which this Court permitted the Petitioner to approach the Bank and apprise the officers regarding the subsequent development, including the unanimous resolution approving the appointment of two Directors. The learned Counsel submitted that though the Bank prevented the Petitioner from operating the account as per Ext.P1 Order of injunction passed by the NCLT, after passing Ext.P5 Order by this Court, the Bank permitted the Petitioner to operate the account. But when the NCLT passed Ext.P6 Order in a Contempt Petition finding that Ext.P1 Injunction Order extends to the successors of the Respondents in Ext.P1 and it would continue to operate till it is expressly modified or vacated by any subsequent order, the Banks refused to permit the Petitioner to operate the account. Though the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the NCLAT against Ext.P1 Order, the NCLAT passed the Ext.P3 Order directing the Petitioner to approach the NCLT for clarification. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed Ext.P4 Petition before the NCLT for permitting the Petitioner to operate the bank account. The said Petition is pending consideration even now. Now the matter is referred to mediation by the NCLT and the matter is pending consideration for mediation and hence, the NCLT is unable to consider Ext.P4 Petition.

4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the contesting Party Respondents submitted that the Ext.P1 Order was passed by the NCLT on their petition against the Directors of the Petitioner Company. The said Order is binding on the successors of the Directors of the respondents therein. The person representing the Petitioner Company, namely Babu Joseph, is claiming that he was appointed as a Director under Section 167 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013 , on the basis of a general meeting held by the promoters. The said Directors are not promoters. When the Directors who are the respondents in the Ext.P1 Order cannot continue the operation of the Company by themselves, they cannot do it indirectly through another person appointed by them. In Ext.P6 Order, there is a specific finding by the NCLT that Ext.P1 Order extends to the successors and individuals acting on behalf of the respondents in Ext.P1 Order. The appointment of the said Babu Joseph as Director is pending consideration before the NCLT in a Company Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have considered the rival contentions.

6. It appears on the records that when the Ext.P1 Order was passed by the NCLT, the said Babu Joseph was not in the scene. The said Babu Joseph claims that he became