NCLAT Dismisses Appeal Against Order Ensuring Compliance With Earlier Directions

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has dismissed an appeal against an order directing disclosure of machinery details, holding that the impugned order was intended to ensure compliance with earlier directions that had not been challenged by the appellant.

The appeal was filed by director Ashok Kumar Kataria against the July 30, 2026, order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The order directed the concerned respondents to confirm the list of machinery owned by LSR Infracon Pvt. Ltd. and specify the serial numbers of the plant and machinery.

A bench of Judicial Member Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Technical Member Arun Baroka and Technical Member Indevar Pandey observed that the impugned order did not prejudice Kataria because it was ensuring compliance with earlier orders.

"The instant Order does not at all prejudice any of the vested rights of the appellant because of the fact that, if we see the impugned order as a matter of fact, the order was rather ensuring compliance of the earlier orders, which was mandatory as per the various dictums laid down by the Courts that once an Order is existing in the eyes of law, it has had to be complied with irrespective of the chain of circumstances," the bench observed.

The case arose from a company petition filed by Loveleen Dhaliwal Singla under Sections 241 and 242 read with Sections 94, 96, 101, 136, 180, 173 and 447 of the Companies Act, 2013. She alleged oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of LSR Infracon.

Sections 241 and 242 provide a remedy to a member where the affairs of a company are being conducted in a manner that is oppressive or prejudicial to members or the company. They allow the tribunal to pass appropriate orders to address such conduct and regulate the company's affairs.

The NCLT had earlier passed orders dated June 4 and July 7, 2026 concerning the company's machinery. The June 4 order directed the concerned respondents to share a list of machinery with its locations and descriptions, while the July 7 order directed them to file the list within seven days.

Neither order was challenged by Kataria. The NCLAT noted that the July 7 order specifically contained a direction to provide the machinery list within seven days.

Singla subsequently filed an application under Sections 241 and 242 read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016. She sought assistance from authorities in Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, and Chandigarh to secure physical possession of the company's machinery.

The NCLAT noted that the July 30 order flowed from the earlier directions. It held that the order did not add anything new but laid down steps for ensuring compliance with those directions.

The bench relied on Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, (2007) where the Supreme Court held that a direction issued by a competent court must be obeyed and implemented. An aggrieved party must challenge such a direction through appropriate legal proceedings.

The NCLAT further held that Kataria had no crystallised right that was prejudiced by the impugned order. It observed that if any prejudice was caused, it was to Singla, whose application had not been considered in its entirety and had been deferred while partial relief was granted.

The NCLAT held that the appeal was not sustainable in the circumstances. It noted that the impugned order did not adjudicate an issue on merits but was intended to ensure compliance with the earlier orders.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed.