The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.34872 of 2025 Rai Sri Chinmaya Rai Sri Chinmaya Srichandan …. Petitioner(s) Petitioner Mr. Amit Prasad Bose Amit Prasad Bose, Adv. -versus-
Legal Reasoning
Rai Sri Achyutananda …. Rai Sri Achyutananda Srichandan Opposite Party(s) Opposite Party CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI HON’BLE NJEEB K PANIGRAHI
Decision
Order No. ORDER 10.12.2025 his matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The Petitioner, claiming to be a shareholder of the company The Petitioner, claiming to be a shareholder of the company in question, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court in question, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court in question, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, assailing under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, assailing under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the National Company the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the National Company the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Company Appeal (AT) Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Company Appeal (AT) Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Company Appeal (AT) of 2025, whereby the NCLAT affirmed the order No. 274 of 2025, whereby the NCLAT affirmed the order of 2025, whereby the NCLAT affirmed the order dated 19.08.2025 of the National Company Law Tribunal, dated 19.08.2025 of the National Company Law Tribunal, dated 19.08.2025 of the National Company Law Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, in CP (Companies Act) No. 55/CB/2023. Cuttack Bench, in CP (Companies Act) No. 55/CB/2023. Cuttack Bench, in CP (Companies Act) No. 55/CB/2023. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. On a consideration of the challenge laid, this Court is of the On a consideration of the challenge laid, this Court is of t 4. On a consideration of the challenge laid, this Court is of t view that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view that the present writ petition is not maintainable in light of the efficacious alternate statutory remedy provided light of the efficacious alternate statutory remedy provided light of the efficacious alternate statutory remedy provided Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 11-Dec-2025 11:41:30 under Section 423 of the Companies Act, 2013, which reads under Section 423 of the Companies Act, 2013, which reads under Section 423 of the Companies Act, 2013, which reads as under: “423. Appeal to Supreme Court. Any person aggrieved by any 423. Appeal to Supreme Court. —Any person aggrieved by any of the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the order of the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the of the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the Supreme Court within sixty days from the date of receipt of the Supreme Court within sixty days from the date of receipt of the Supreme Court within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order of the Appellate Tribunal to him on any question of law order of the Appellate Tribunal to him on any question of law order of the Appellate Tribunal to him on any question of law arising out of such order: arising out of such order: sfied that the Provided that the Supreme Court may, if it is satisfied that the Provided that the Supreme Court may, if it is sati appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.” period not exceeding sixty days.” 5. In view of the above, and having regard to the settled In view of the above, and having regard to the settled In view of the above, and having regard to the settled principle that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised principle that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised principle that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised when an adequate alternate statutory remedy exists, save in when an adequate alternate statutory remedy exists, save in when an adequate alternate statutory remedy exists, save in as observed by the Hon’ble exceptional circumstances as observed by the Hon’ble exceptional circumstances Corporation v. Registrar of Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P2 and Trademarks1,Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P the Apex Court has fortified many more judgments wherein the Apex Court has fortified many more judgments wherein remedy is not a bar to the the legal position that alternative remedy is not a bar to the the legal position that Court if the writ exercise of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court if the writ exercise of the writ jurisdiction of the High petition is filed for enforcement of fundamental rights; petition is filed for enforcement of fundamental rights; petition is filed for enforcement of fundamental rights; where there has been a violation of the principles of natural where there has been a violation of the principles of natural where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; where the order or the proceedings are wholly justice; where the order or the proceedings are wholly justice; where the order or the proceedings are wholly without without without jurisdiction; or when the vires of an Act is jurisdiction; or when the vires of an Act is jurisdiction; or when the vires of an Act is challenged. The petitioner The petitioner, in the present case, , in the present case, has not Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 11-Dec-2025 11:41:30