Refusal to stay an EGM does not preclude subsequent challenges to specific resolutions passed therein.

The Appellants filed an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 199/2025) before the NCLT, Hyderabad Bench, seeking a stay of an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) scheduled for August 7, 2025

On August 1, 2025, the NCLT disposed of the application, ordering that any decision taken during the EGM would be subject to the outcome of the main Company Petition

The Appellants challenged this order before the NCLAT, arguing that the NCLT failed to consider their specific prayers and that the disposal of the application effectively precluded them from filing fresh challenges against the actual outcomes of the EGM

During the pendency of the appeal, the Respondent noted that the EGM had concluded and DIR-12 forms had been registered

1. Whether the NCLT's order dated August 1, 2025, prejudiced the Appellants by precluding them from challenging specific decisions taken during the EGM held on August 7, 2025

2. Whether the Appellants should be granted liberty to file fresh applications against the EGM's outcome to ensure the ends of justice are served

The Tribunal applied the principles of procedural fairness and the inherent powers of the Appellate Tribunal to ensure the ends of justice.

The court emphasized that an interlocutory order disposing of a stay application should not operate as a bar to challenging subsequent actions (the EGM decisions) if the party remains aggrieved by the specific outcome of those actions

The NCLAT observed that the NCLT had disposed of the stay application with a brief observation that the EGM results would be subject to the final petition

However, the Appellants argued that this summary disposal left them unable to contest the specific resolutions passed during said EGM

The NCLAT found that for justice to be served, the Appellants must have the right to challenge the EGM's outcome via a fresh application

The Tribunal reasoned that the impugned order should be clarified so it does not act as a legal or procedural hurdle for the Appellants in pursuing future remedies regarding the decisions made on August 7, 2025

The Tribunal held that the impugned order dated August 1, 2025, shall not preclude the Appellants from pursuing such an application

Furthermore, the NCLT was directed to consider and decide any such fresh application on its own merits in accordance with the law, without being influenced by any observations made in the August 1, 2025, order