Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Company Petition — Interim Relief Granted to Restrain Alienation of Property. Balance of convenience favored grant of ad-interim relief to protect subject matter of petition under Sections 397, 398 of Companies Act, 1956.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 74
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The present appeal arises from a Company Petition No. 149 of 2012 filed under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the respondent company. The appellants, who are the original respondents in the company petition, sought ad-interim relief to restrain the respondents from alienating, transferring, or creating third-party rights in the suit property. The court, after hearing the parties, found that the balance of convenience was in favor of granting the relief as the subject matter of the petition was the property itself. The court noted that the petitioners had made out a prima facie case and that irreparable loss would be caused if the relief was not granted. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a), directing that the respondents be restrained from alienating, transferring, or creating third-party rights in the suit property until the final disposal of the company petition. The court also directed that the appeal be listed for final hearing on a peremptory basis.

Headnote

A) Company Law - Oppression and Mismanagement - Interim Relief - Sections 397, 398 Companies Act, 1956 - The court considered whether to grant ad-interim relief restraining alienation of property pending final disposal of the company petition alleging oppression and mismanagement - Held that the balance of convenience was in favor of granting relief to protect the subject matter, as the petitioners had made out a prima facie case and would suffer irreparable loss if relief was not granted (Paras 1-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) should be granted to restrain the respondents from alienating, transferring, or creating third-party rights in the suit property pending the hearing of the Company Petition.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Ad-interim relief granted in terms of prayer clause (a) restraining respondents from alienating, transferring, or creating third-party rights in the suit property until final disposal of the company petition. Appeal to be listed for final hearing on peremptory basis.

Law Points

  • Interim relief
  • Balance of convenience
  • Irreparable loss
  • Prima facie case
  • Company law
  • Section 397
  • Section 398
  • Companies Act
  • 1956
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (BOM) (12) 49

Appeal (L) No. 9967 of 2025 in Company Petition No. 149 of 2012 with Interim Application (L) No. 9970 of 2025

2025-01-01

Yogesh Prakash Kela, Umesh Prakash Kela, Abhilasha Kela, Lata Kela, Prakash Kela

Govinda Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against order in company petition under Sections 397 and 398 of Companies Act, 1956 alleging oppression and mismanagement.

Remedy Sought

Ad-interim relief restraining respondents from alienating, transferring, or creating third-party rights in the suit property.

Filing Reason

To protect the subject matter of the company petition pending final hearing.

Issues

Whether ad-interim relief should be granted to restrain alienation of property pending final disposal of company petition.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that balance of convenience was in their favor and they would suffer irreparable loss if relief was not granted. Respondents opposed the grant of interim relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the balance of convenience was in favor of granting ad-interim relief to protect the subject matter of the petition, as the petitioners had made out a prima facie case and would suffer irreparable loss if relief was not granted.

Judgment Excerpts

The balance of convenience is in favour of the Appellants and they would suffer irreparable loss if the ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) is not granted. Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) is granted.

Procedural History

Company Petition No. 149 of 2012 was filed under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. The present appeal (L) No. 9967 of 2025 was filed against an order in that petition, along with an interim application (L) No. 9970 of 2025. The court heard the appeal and granted ad-interim relief.

Acts & Sections

  • Companies Act, 1956: 397, 398
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Company Petition — Interim Relief Granted to Restrain Alienation of Property. Balance of convenience favored grant of ad-interim relief to protect subject matter of petition under Sections 397, 398 of Companies Ac...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Land Acquisition Compensation Case — Enhances Compensation for Acquired Land. Court holds that the Reference Court erred in dismissing the reference for default without considering the merits, and remands the matt...