PURNIMA MANTHENA AND ANOTHER versus DR. RENUKA DATLA & OTHERS

Citation: [2015] 11 S.C.R. 218 · Decided: 08-10-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2015] 11S.C.R.218 
PU RN I MA MANTHENAAND ANOTHER 
v. 
DR. RENUKA DATLA & OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 8275 of 2015) 
OCTOBER 06, 2015 
[V. GO PALA GOWDA AND AMIT AVA ROY, JJ.] 
Companies Act, 1956: 
s.10F - Appeal under, against interim order - In the 
instant case, promoter of a company died leaving behind 
respondent no.1-wife and 3 daughters who were appointed 
as directors of the company - Dispute arose behtieen them 
0 
regarding holding of certain board meetings and appointment 
of daughters as Directors and continuance of respondent 
no. 6 as directOr- Respondent no. 1 moved CLB and sought 
interim relief which prayer was declined- On appeal uls. 1 OF, 
High Court allowed the appeal elaborately delving into factual 
E details bearing on all facets of disputes between parties -
Held: High Court being fully conscious that the proceeding 
before the CLB was pending for final adjudication, proceeded 
to undertake an in-depth exercise to analyse the facts and 
the law involved and recorded its decision on merits in total 
F substitution of the order of the CLB - This was in absence of 
any pleadings by the appellants, the contesting Directors 
before the CLB -
Having regard to the fact that the appeal 
before thf! High Court uls. 1 OF of the Act was one from an 
interim order passed in exercise of judicial discretion at the 
G stage of mentioning, bearing in mind the permissible 
parameters of exercise of appellate jurisdiction in such 
matters, the elaborate pursuit so undertaken by it, is neither 
contemplated nor permissible - High Court, in any view of 
the matter, was not dealing with a regular appeal uls. 1 OF 
H on a question of law from a decision rendered by the CLB 
218 
PURNIMA MANTHENA v. DR. RENUKADATLA 
219 
on merits, 
after a complete adjudication - No final A 
determination on merits was warranted as it has the effect of 
pre judging disputed questions pending before the CLB. 
s. 1 OF - Role of appellate forum under - Held: While 
the language applied ins. 1 OF evinces that all orders, whether B 
final or interlocutory, can be.the subject-matter of appeal, ifit 
occasions a que$tion of law, the Section per se defines the 
perimeters of inquisition by the appellate forum conditioned 
by the type of the order under scrutiny- Whereas an appeal 
u/s. 1 OF from an order granting or refusing interim relief, C 
essentially in the exercise of judicial discretion and based 
on equity is one on principle and no interference is merited 
unless the same suffers from the vice of perversity and 
arbitrariness, such constrictions may not necessarily regulate 
and/or restrict the domain of examination in a regular appeal D 
on facts and law. 
s.10-F- Scope.of- Held: s.10F of the· Act engrafts 
the requirem.ent of the existence of a question of law.arising 
from the decision of.the CLB as an essential pre-condition E 
for the maintainability of an appeal thereunder. 
Interlocutory order: Scope of - Held: No adjudication 
at the preliminary stage of a proceeding in a court of law ought 
to have the attributes of a final verdict so as to prejudge the F 
issues at that stage, thereby rendering the principal 
determination otiose or redundant. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
H.ELD: 1. A question of law, as is comprehended in G 
Section 1 OF of the Act, would arise, if a decision which 
is the foundation thereof, suffers from perversity, 
following a patent error on a fundamental principle of 
law or disregard to relevant materials or cognizance of H 
220 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A irrelevant or non-germane determinants. A decision 
however, on the issues raised, is a sine qua non for a 
question of law to exist. A decision logically per-
supposes an adjudication on the facets of the 
controversy involved and mere deferment thereof to a 
B future point of time till the completion of the essential 
legal formalities would not ipso facto fructify into a 
verdict to generate a question of law to be appealed from. 
However, an omission to record a finding even on a 
conscious scrutiny of the materials bearing on the 
C issues involved in a given case, may be termed to be 
one. In any view of the matter, the appellate forum 
though exercising a jurisdiction which otherwise may 
be co-ordinate with that of the lower forum, ought to 
0 confine its judicial audit within the layput of the 
adjudgment undertaken by the forum of lowe,r tier. This 
is imperative, more particularly in the exercise of the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.