Annual general meeting may proceed, but further Governing Council appointments remain barred by the appellate order.

The plaintiffs challenged the 14 October 2025 Governing Council elections of NAREDCO and sought interim relief concerning its scheduled 28th Annual General Body Meeting (AGM) of 30 September 2026.

They alleged that agenda items 28.1, concerning confirmation of the prior AGM minutes, and 28.4, concerning the Governing Council, could circumvent existing judicial restrictions.

An earlier Single Judge order had barred Governing Council meetings taking decisions affecting NAREDCO’s functioning; on appeal, the Division Bench stayed that order but directed that no further Governing Council members be appointed until the injunction application was decided.

The plaintiffs sought to stay the AGM or restrict the consideration and implementation of those agenda items.

Whether the AGM could proceed to consider agenda item 28.1, subject to the existing interim orders.

Whether agenda item 28.4 could be acted upon insofar as it involved appointing additional Governing Council members, and whether other proposals under that item could proceed.

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provide the procedural basis for seeking interim injunctive relief.

The controlling restraint was the Division Bench’s order of 23 April 2026: pending decision on the injunction application, no further Governing Council members could be appointed, while the earlier Single Judge order remained stayed.

Rule 5 of NAREDCO’s Rules and Regulations, invoked by NAREDCO in support of the proposed rotation and filling of Governing Council vacancies, could not authorise appointments contrary to that appellate direction.

No separate precedent was relied upon.

The Court construed the AGM agenda in light of the Division Bench’s operative order.

That order did not prohibit the AGM or generally prevent consideration of agenda item 28.1; accordingly, the AGM could proceed on that item, provided no decision prejudicial to the plaintiffs and covered by the appellate restraint was taken.

By contrast, any action under item 28.4 that added Governing Council members would conflict with the express prohibition on further appointments.

The Court therefore declined to permit such appointments, while finding no corresponding bar to other proposals under item 28.4.

NAREDCO was left to seek clarification or modification from the Division Bench, and other proposals under item 28.4 were not prohibited.