M/S Rock Bottom Mines Private Limited & Ors & Ors. vs Sanjeev Chaudhary & Ors & Ors.

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

Company Appeal (AT) No.332 of 2026

IN THE MATTER OF:
Rock Bottom Mines Private Limited & Ors. ...Appellants
Vs.
Sanjeev Chaudhary and Ors. ...Respondents

Present:
For Appellant: Mr. Sajal Jain, Mr. Kartik Pandey, Mr. Deepankar
Sharma, Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Advocates
For Respondent : Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aalok
Jagga, Mr. Nipun Gautam, Mr. APS Madaan, Mr. Sahil
Lohan, Ms. Shefali, Advocates

O R D E R
(Hybrid Mode)

02.09.2026 - The appellant is an opposite party to the proceedings of C.P.
No. 65/CHD/HRY/2026 – Sanjeev Chaudhary vs. Rock Bottom Mines Private
Limited & Ors.
2. By virtue of this company appeal, has expressed his grievances as against
the impugned order of 21.08.2026, as passed by the learned NCLT, Chandigarh
Bench, whereby in proceedings which were being held under Section 213(b)(i) &
(ii) of the Companies Act, 2013, seeking an investigation into the affairs of the
company, which was sought for to be read under Section 221 and Section 447
of the Companies Act, 2013. The learned Tribunal has proceeded to pass an
interim Order recording thereof that it is in context of relief (b), (c) and (g), as it
was modulated and prayed in the application filed in support of grant of an

2

interim order in the company petition. The learned Tribunal on the very first date
of hearing had proceeded to pass the Order of the following nature:-
a. Appointed an Administrator who happens to be a Retired Hon’ble
Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court.
b. The SHO was directed to immediately confiscate all the records.
c. The petitioner was to accompany the police officials to help and
identify to carry out the directions contained in Clause – 2 and
respondent Nos.1 to 6 i.e. the appellants herein, were restricted from
removal, transfer or disposal of the funds, assets and properties of
respondent No.1 company.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellants, while pressing upon the appeal,
has submitted that the company petition was presented on 18.08.2026 and on
the very first date, when the matter was listed before the learned Tribunal as
fresh i.e. on 21.08.2026, the learned Tribunal without soliciting any response
from the appellant in relation to the subject involved in the company petition or
in the interim relief that was sought in the interim application, had proceeded to
pass an Order of the nature as discussed above.
4. It is argued that the learned Tribunal has traversed in passing an Order
without considering the facts on record or recording its own finding to justify
passing of an interim Order of the nature, except for a very vague observation
has been made i.e. the Tribunal is of a prima facie satisfied. This explanation
given in itself cannot be said to be a logical reason because prima facie

3

satisfaction has to be supported by reasons based on consideration of material
and facts on record, by recording finding on it, and, more particularly, when the
nature of the Order, which is passed on the very first date, has got serious civil
consequences and it also has an impact and bearing on the final relief.

5. In order to attach sanctity to the orders passed by the Court or the
Tribunals, in order to ensure to rule out any bias, it was expected that the
Tribunal ought to have assigned reasons because any orders, which were being
passed by it, were hampering the civil rights of the appellant. Even the interim
order, which has an effect of affecting the lis have to be passed with the reasons,
assigned to it even if the exigency requires passing of the same on the first day,
and more particularly, when the Order was being passed on the first day, the
reason becomes inevitable.
6. The matter was contested and the respondent’s Counsel represented by
Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Alok Jagga, vehemently
opposed and contended that even passing of the interim Orders, which are
interlocutory in nature, no reasons are required to be recorded. Since the issue
became debatable and was being hotly contested, we proceeded to pass an Order
for calling for a counter, but while we were dictating an Order and before it could
be completed. The Counsel for the respondent submitted that it will be apt to
quash the Order and to remit the matter back to the learned Tribunal to consider
the interim application itself afresh and be decided afresh after providing an
opportunity and hearing the appellant, let the Tribunal pass a fresh Order.

4

7. Owing to the aforesaid and on this exclusive simpliciter ground that the
impugned order is a non-reasoned order and does not reflect the applicability of
mind or consideration of material on record by assigning reasons to justify
passing of an interim order, we quash the Order of 21.08.2026. The matter is
remitted back to the learned Tribunal with a request to reconsider the
application for the grant of interim order. But, if any order is required afresh, it
would be only after providing opportunity to the parties and decide the same in
accordance with law, more particularly by assigning reasons upon consideration
of material.
Accordingly, the company appeal would stand allowed. The impugned order
would stand quashed.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma]
Member (Judicial)



[Arun Baroka]
Member (Technical)



[Indevar Pandey]
Member (Technical)
rs/ravi