Authority: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi

Order Date: 03 September 2026

Case Overview

This appeal, Company Appeal (AT) No.312 of 2026, was filed by Ashok Kumar Kataria (Appellant) against an order dated 30.07.2026 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chandigarh Bench, in CA No. 126(CH) of 2026. The CA was an application within the main Company Petition No. 16/CHD/2025, which was originally filed by Loveleen Dhaliwal Singla (Respondent No.1) against LSR Infracon Private Limited (Respondent No.2) and others, including the appellant, under Sections 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013, alleging oppression and mismanagement.

The main company petition sought reliefs including holding respondents guilty of oppression, restraining them from acting on behalf of the company, declaring their actions without consent as invalid, and directing them to refund allegedly siphoned funds. The specific application (CA 126/2026) that led to this appeal sought orders to secure physical possession of the company's plant and machinery, scattered across Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, and Chandigarh. It requested directions to District Authorities for assistance and directives to Amit Singla (Respondent No.3) and Ashok Kataria (Appellant) to cooperate and not obstruct the process.

The NCLT's impugned order partially allowed this application. It was based on two prior unchallenged orders from the same proceedings (04.06.2026 and 07.07.2026). The order dated 04.06.2026 noted that the company was in infrastructure and owned substantial assets, and that Respondents 2 & 3 had floated another company, ASEC Infra Pvt Ltd, where revenues from the use of LSR Infracon's equipment were allegedly being credited. It directed Respondents 2 & 3 to share a list of company-owned machinery with their locations and descriptions. The order dated 07.07.2026 reiterated this direction and warned that failure to furnish the list within a week could lead to their removal from management.

The impugned order of 30.07.2026 built upon these directives. It issued formal notices to the appellant and Amit Singla, directed them to confirm the list of machinery owned by the company including serial numbers, and required them to disclose any associations with third parties concerning the machinery and details of any sales made. It also left it open for the applicant (Loveleen Dhaliwal Singla) to seek assistance from government authorities in various states to locate and secure the assets, providing them with documents proving ownership.

The NCLAT observed that the appellant, holding only 1.75% shares (1000 equity shares) compared to the applicant's 98.25% (56,137 shares), and being the estranged husband of the applicant, failed to challenge the foundational orders of 04.06.2026 and 07.07.2026. The appellate tribunal found the impugned order to be merely procedural, aimed at ensuring compliance with these prior valid and binding directives, and not an order that adjudicated any substantive rights on merit. Relying on the Supreme Court precedent in Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs. C. Muddaiah (2007), the NCLAT emphasized that a court's direction must be obeyed and cannot be made ineffective by non-compliance.

Final Outcome

The NCLAT dismissed the appeal, upholding the NCLT's order dated 30.07.2026. It found no merit in the appellant's challenge, concluding that the order did not prejudice any crystallized rights of the appellant and was a valid step to ensure compliance with previous unchallenged directives. All pending interlocutory applications were closed.

Topics: Shareholder Dispute, Asset Disclosure, Corporate Governance