Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT’s order treating an ex parte interim order as invalid merely because the opposing party had not been heard. Urgent protective relief may be granted ex parte after considering irretrievable injury, a prima facie case and the balance of convenience. The Court directed the NCLT to reconsider the interim application after hearing both sides within a specified timetable, without expressing any view on their substantive dispute.
Issues
- Whether an ex parte interim order could be set aside solely for lack of a prior hearing, and how the interim application should proceed.
Held
- The appropriate course for a party facing the NCLT’s ex parte ad interim order was to seek its vacation or modification before that tribunal. Absence of a prior hearing does not by itself invalidate urgent ex parte relief. (¶ 3)
- Before granting ex parte protection, the adjudicating authority must assess grave urgency, irretrievable injury, a prima facie case and the balance of convenience. The NCLAT had not addressed the essential justification for urgent relief. (¶ 3)
- The appellants could renew their request on the same interim application. The respondents were allowed two weeks to reply, and the NCLT was to decide after hearing the parties within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order. Merits remained open. (¶ 4)
Result
Civil appeal disposed of; NCLAT order set aside and replaced by directions for fresh, time-bound consideration of interim relief by the NCLT.