A company, XYZ Ltd., is involved in a commercial dispute with its minority shareholders regarding alleged mismanagement and oppression. The minority shareholders filed a petition before the National Company Law Tribunal

Interlocutory Order In the context of commercial and company law disputes, especially before the NCLT and NCLAT, the concept of interlocutory orders must be examined with a nuanced approach, distinguishing between routine procedural directions and those which substantially affect rights. The NCLT's order restraining the board of XYZ Ltd. from passing major financial resolutions without prior approval is interlocutory in nature, as it does not finally dispose of the petition. Such orders are passed during the pendency of proceedings to maintain the status quo and prevent irreparable harm. Section 397(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 / section 438(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) bars the exercise of revisional power concerning interlocutory orders. These are temporary or provisional orders that do not finally decide the rights of the parties. However, the nature and impact of such orders may bring them within the scope of judicial review or special revision under Article 227 of the Constitution, especially when the Tribunal is alleged to have acted beyond its jurisdiction or in breach of principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court has held that interlocutory orders should be construed liberally in favor of the party affected to ensure a fair hearing in civil or commercial matters. However, 'intermediate' or 'quasi-final' orders that significantly affect proceedings may still be subject to revision. In such cases, where no statutory appeal lies, the party may invoke special supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 as a limited revisional remedy to prevent miscarriage of justice. Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) and Company Law, interlocutory orders are generally not appealable unless they decide substantive rights. Nonetheless, in the company law framework, if the interlocutory order substantially affects the right to manage or administer the affairs of the company, it may be challenged through a special writ petition or revision application under Article 227, where the order is patently arbitrary or without jurisdiction. Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 allows appeals from NCLT to NCLAT, but only against final orders, not interlocutory orders. Yet, courts have recognized exceptions where the interlocutory order has serious civil consequences or prejudicially affects the outcome of the main dispute. In such cases, Article 227 jurisdiction or special revision has been entertained to ensure that procedural safeguards are upheld. In Sundresh Bhatt v. Central Bank of India (NCLAT) it was decided that Interim orders of NCLT are appealable only if they substantively determine rights. Therefore, if an interlocutory order passed by the NCLT seriously affects legal rights, or is passed without jurisdiction, the aggrieved party may approach the High Court under special revisionary jurisdiction via Article 227, which, although limited, is available when there is a patent error of law or abuse of process. The case of Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1993) SC , has clarified the distinction between final and interlocutory orders. Also, in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675 , the Supreme Court clarified that even where a statutory revision or appeal is not maintainable, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised to keep tribunals within bounds of their authority. Therefore, it may be said that the order restricting the board from taking financial decisions affects the company's decision-making power and may qualify as substantially affecting rights. Hence, it may be considered appealable, though subject to NCLAT's discretion.