2021 (12) TMI 1457 - HC - Companies Law

Grant of ad-interim reliefs - applicant/plaintiff stated that since they are now not challenging the rejection of ad-interim reliefs by filing any appeal this Court need not give any reasons for the same - HELD THAT - In view of the statements made by applicant/plaintiff no reasons are recorded for rejecting the prayer for ad-interim reliefs. If any of the Defendants want to file any Affidavit-in-Reply to the above Interim Application they may do so on or before 13th January 2022 and serve a copy of the same on the advocates for the Plaintiff. If the Plaintiff wants to file any Affidavit-in-Rejoinder it may do so on or before 27th January 2022 and serve a copy of the same on the advocates for the Defendants. Place the above Interim Application for hearing on 3rd February 2022.

Summary

Issues:
Interim relief application based on AGM outcome

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by Justice B.P. Colabawalla of the Bombay High Court pertains to an interim application argued by the Plaintiff's senior counsel, seeking relief related to the Annual General Meeting (AGM) scheduled for 30th December, 2021. The Plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Seervai, expressed willingness to abide by the decision of the court regarding the AGM outcome in connection with the interim application. Consequently, the Plaintiff agreed not to challenge the rejection of ad-interim reliefs, eliminating the need for the court to provide reasons for the rejection. The court directed that the result of the AGM would be subject to the decision on the interim application, and no reasons were recorded for denying the ad-interim reliefs. The Defendants were given the opportunity to file an Affidavit-in-Reply by 13th January, 2022, with the Plaintiff allowed to file an Affidavit-in-Rejoinder by 27th January, 2022. The court scheduled the hearing for the Interim Application on 3rd February, 2022, and instructed all parties to comply with the order digitally signed by the court's personnel.

This judgment highlights the importance of parties' willingness to abide by the court's decision and the implications of such agreement on the legal proceedings. The Plaintiff's decision not to challenge the rejection of ad-interim reliefs based on the AGM outcome demonstrates a strategic legal maneuver to expedite the resolution process. The court's directive regarding the filing of Affidavits by the parties indicates the procedural requirements to ensure fair consideration of all relevant arguments before the scheduled hearing. The digital authentication of the court order emphasizes the modernization of legal processes through technological advancements, ensuring efficient communication and adherence to court directives. Overall, the judgment underscores the significance of cooperation between parties and adherence to court procedures in facilitating a fair and expeditious resolution of legal disputes.