Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Kalyani Transco, Stays NCLT Action Pending Review

The Supreme Court granted interim relief to Kalyani Transco and stayed the proceedings before the NCLT pending the filing and disposal of the Review Petition.

On 26 May 2025, the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma considered an appeal involving a proposed review petition and held that, in the interest of justice and to prevent potential prejudice to the appellant's right to seek review, an order of status quo be maintained concerning the proceedings before the NCLT. This interim relief was granted pending the filing and disposal of the Review Petition and was issued without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a recent order, addressed the appellant’s plea seeking interim protection in light of their proposed Review Petition against the judgment dated 02.05.2025 in Kalyani Transco v. Bhushan Power and Steel Limited and Others, REEDLAW 2025 SC 01601. Upon issuance of notice, appearances were entered by Mr. Soayib Qureshi for respondent No. 1, Mr. Shreyas Maheshwari for respondent No. 2, and the learned Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta, for respondent No. 3.

Permission to file the Special Leave Petition was granted, and leave was accordingly allowed. The Court heard the submissions of learned senior counsel Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul for the appellant, Mr. Dhruv Mehta for respondent No. 1, and the learned Solicitor General representing respondent No. 3.

The appellant contended that they retained the right to file a Review Petition against the aforementioned judgment and that the limitation period for doing so had not lapsed. It was submitted that steps were actively being taken to file such a Review Petition. However, the appellant expressed concern that implementation of the directions issued by the Court in the original judgment was being sought expeditiously by the first respondent (ex-promoters), which could potentially prejudice the consideration of the pending Review Petition.

After hearing the counsels and considering the matter, the Supreme Court observed that, without commenting on the merits of the case, an interim order was warranted in the interest of justice to prevent further legal complications. Accordingly, the Court directed that a status quo be maintained in respect of the proceedings pending before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). This interim direction was made to remain in force until the Review Petition(s), to be filed by the appellant, are duly considered and disposed of by the Court.

The Court further clarified that this order was passed purely as an interim arrangement and would not prejudice the substantive issues to be raised in the Review Petition. It also recorded the undertaking of Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, senior counsel for the appellant, that the Review Petition(s) would be filed within the prescribed limitation period and in accordance with law.

With these directions, the appeal and all pending applications were disposed of.

M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR, Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Nandini Gore, Advocate, Mr. Rajendra Barot, Advocate, Mr. Suharsh Sinha, Advocate, Ms. Tahira Karanjawala, Advocate, Dr. Abhimanyu Chopra, Advocate, Ms. Sherna Doongaji, Advocate, Ms. Swati Bhardwaj, Advocate, Mr. Shreyas Maheshwari, Advocate, Mr. Akarsh Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Manvi Rastogi, Advocate, Mr. Akilesh Menezes, Advocate, Ms. Sharanya Ghosh, Advocate, Ms. Mahek Karanjawala, Advocate, Mr. Shahyan Khan, Advocate and Mr. Deepak Joshi, Advocate, represented the Appellant.

Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Advocate, Mr. Soayib Qureshi, AOR (R-1), Ms. Anchal Singh Kushwaha, Advocate, Mr. Anubhav Ray, Advocate, Mr. Pinaki Misra, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Swati Bhardwaj, Advocate, Mr. Shreyas Maheshwari, Advocate, Mr. Akarsh Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Manvi Rastogi, Advocate, Ms. Sharanya Ghosh, Advocate, M/s Karanjawala & Co., AOR (R2), Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Mr. Raunak Dhillon, AOR (R-3), Mr. Aishwarya Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Isha Malika, Advocate, Mr. Anchit Jasuja, Advocate, Mr. Bhuvan Kapur, Advocate, appeared for the Respondents.

---

To access the full content related to this article, including the complete judgment text, detailed legal analysis, ratio decidendi, headnotes, cited case laws, and updates on relevant statutes and notifications, we invite you to subscribe to our premium service.

Click "Subscribe" to unlock these exclusive legal resources.

If you are already a subscriber, please explore these resources by clicking the following citation/link.

REEDLAW 2025 SC 05583