Ex parte personal appearance orders under Order 39 Rule 2A require recorded reasons.

Amrex Marketing Pvt. Ltd., claiming to be a substantial minority shareholder of B&A Limited, instituted Title Suit No. 715 of 2026 seeking, inter alia, a declaration that Form C dated 14 November 2025—by which Sharmila Vijay Shetty disclosed ownership of 11,78,118 shares constituting approximately 38% of B&A Limited—was void, and an injunction against reliance upon that disclosure.

The suit was permitted to proceed in a representative capacity on behalf of similarly interested public shareholders under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC.

On 19 May 2026, the trial court granted an ad interim injunction restraining Shetty from exercising voting rights or dealing with the scheduled shares, and restraining B&A Limited from giving effect to Form C or counting votes cast by her in respect of those shares.

Amrex thereafter filed a proceeding under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, alleging that at B&A Limited’s AGM held on 30 July 2026, Shetty’s votes were counted and reported to the Bombay Stock Exchange, despite the subsisting injunction.

By order dated 4 August 2026, the trial court directed the opposite parties to appear personally on 3 September 2026 and restrained implementation of the AGM resolutions, including Shetty’s reappointment, until that date.

B&A Limited and another alleged contemnor challenged the direction for personal appearance under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the trial court could direct personal appearance by an ex parte ad interim order in a proceeding under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC without recording reasons justifying such relief

Whether the High Court ought to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to stay such a direction where the subordinate court failed to record reasons for granting ex parte relief

Whether interim relief restraining implementation of the AGM resolutions could properly be granted in the Rule 2A proceeding and whether the suit was barred by Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013

The Court applied Section 94(c) and (e) CPC read with Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, holding that temporary injunctions are granted under the statutory scheme of Section 94 read with Order 39 and not under two independent sources of power.

Under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC, notice ordinarily must precede an injunction; an ex parte injunction requires recorded reasons showing that delay would defeat its object.

Order 39 Rule 2A is principally intended to enforce and secure compliance with interim injunctions, through attachment and detention in civil prison, and is distinct in purpose from contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act.

The Court also recognised the inherent power under Section 151 CPC to restore the status quo and undo acts committed in breach of an injunction.

Article 227 permits interference in cases of unwarranted assumption or unjustifiable exercise of jurisdiction, or gross abuse of jurisdiction, but not as a substitute for appellate review.

The immediate relief before the High Court concerned the direction for personal appearance, rather than the ultimate merits of the alleged breach or the legality of the AGM resolutions.

Although the trial court possessed powers under Order 39 Rule 2A and Section 151 CPC to enforce the injunction and, where necessary, restore the pre-breach position, the direction for personal appearance was granted ex parte under Section 94(c) and (e) without stating why immediate personal attendance was necessary or why notice would defeat the object of the relief.

The absence of reasons was material because an ex parte order affecting the parties’ liberty and requiring personal attendance cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality.

The decision in Chuckles Kohli was distinguishable because, there, the parties had already received an opportunity to reply and had failed to do so.

The Court therefore found sufficient supervisory grounds under Article 227 to intervene, while declining at that stage to decide whether non-parties could be proceeded against under Rule 2A, whether Section 430 barred the suit, or whether the restraint on the AGM resolutions was otherwise justified.

It stayed the operation of that portion of the trial court’s order dated 4 August 2026 which directed the personal appearance of opposite party nos. 1 to 17 in Misc. Case No. 200 of 2026, until the end of December 2026 or until further orders, whichever was earlier.

The Court clarified that the pendency of the Article 227 application would not prevent the trial court from proceeding with the Rule 2A proceeding and connected application.

The petitioners were directed to serve the Article 227 application on the non-appearing opposite parties and file an affidavit of service; the matter was directed to be listed in November 2026.