NCLAT Dismisses Appeal Against EGM for Share Capital Increase in Insolvency Context — No Prima Facie Case for Injunction as RP Had Not Objected to Proposed Resolution Plan. The court held that the appellant, a financial creditor with 99.41% voting share in the CoC, failed to establish a prima facie case for restraining the EGM of a subsidiary company to increase its authorized share capital, as the RP had not objected to the proposed restructuring.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: CHENNAI
  • 47
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves an appeal filed by GLAS Trust Company LLC, the principal financial creditor of Think and Learn Private Limited (TLPL), which is undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) pursuant to an order dated 16.07.2024. TLPL holds approximately 25.41% shares in Aakash Educational Services Limited. Aakash proposed to hold an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) to increase its authorized share capital. The appellant alleged that this increase would dilute TLPL's shareholding from about 25% to about 5%, thereby reducing the value of TLPL's assets available for distribution to creditors. The appellant sought interim relief to restrain the EGM. The NCLAT, after hearing the parties, dismissed the application for interim relief, holding that no prima facie case was made out. The court observed that the Resolution Professional (RP) of TLPL had not objected to the proposed resolution plan which contemplated such restructuring, and the balance of convenience was against granting the injunction. The court also noted that the EGM was called by the board of Aakash, an independent company, and the appellant's apprehension of dilution was not supported by any material showing that the increase would necessarily lead to reduction in value of the debtor's shares. The appeal was dismissed at the interim stage.

Headnote

A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - Interim Relief - Prima Facie Case - The appellant, a financial creditor with 99.41% voting share in the CoC of the corporate debtor, sought to restrain the EGM of a subsidiary company (Aakash) to increase its authorized share capital, alleging dilution of the debtor's shareholding from 25% to 5%. The NCLAT held that no prima facie case was made out for grant of interim injunction, as the RP had not objected to the proposed resolution plan which contemplated such restructuring, and the balance of convenience was against granting the relief. (Paras 1-6)

B) Company Law - Extraordinary General Meeting - Share Capital Increase - The court noted that the EGM was called by the board of Aakash, an independent company, and the appellant's apprehension of dilution was not supported by any material showing that the increase would necessarily lead to reduction in value of the debtor's shares. The court declined to interfere at the interim stage. (Paras 2-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the proposed increase in authorized share capital of Aakash Educational Services Limited by way of an Extraordinary General Meeting should be restrained at the interim stage, pending the appeal against the order of the Adjudicating Authority.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The NCLAT dismissed the application for interim relief (I.A. No.1514 of 2025), holding that no prima facie case was made out for grant of injunction.

Law Points

  • Interim relief under IBC
  • prima facie case for injunction
  • balance of convenience
  • irreparable injury
  • corporate restructuring during CIRP
  • dilution of shareholding
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 LawText (NCLAT) (01) 6

I.A. No.1514 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 139 of 2025

2025-10-28

Justice N. Seshasayee, Mr. Jatindranath Swain

Mr. C. Aryama Sundaram, Senior Advocate; Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Senior Advocate; Mr. Prateek Kumar, Advocate; Ms. Raveena Rai, Advocate; Mr. Siddhant Grover, Advocate; Ms. Moha Paranjpe, Advocate; Mr. Abhi Udai Singh Gautam, Advocate; Mr. Abhishek P., Advocate; Ms. Niharika Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Kevin Joseph, Advocate; Mr. Abhinav Vashisht, Senior Advocate; Ms. Pooja Mahajan, Advocate; Ms. Arveena Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Savar Mahajan, Advocate; Mr. Ichchha Kalash, Advocate; Ms. Samridhi Shrimali, Advocate; Ms. Akshita Sachdeva Jaitly, Advocate; Mr. Sparsh Jain, Advocate; Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Senior Advocate; Dr. UK Chaudhary, Senior Advocate; Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Senior Advocate; Mr. R Chandrachud, Advocate; Mr. Vishnu Mohan, Advocate

GLAS Trust Company LLC

Shailendra Ajmera, resolution professional of Think and Learn Private Limited; Aakash Educational Services Limited and Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against order of Adjudicating Authority refusing interim relief to restrain Extraordinary General Meeting of a company to increase its authorized share capital.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought an interim injunction restraining Aakash Educational Services Limited from holding an EGM to increase its authorized share capital.

Filing Reason

The appellant alleged that the increase in share capital would dilute the shareholding of the corporate debtor (TLPL) from about 25% to about 5%, reducing the value of its assets.

Previous Decisions

The Adjudicating Authority had passed an order on 16.07.2024 admitting TLPL into CIRP. The present appeal is against an order refusing interim relief.

Issues

Whether the appellant has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction restraining the EGM of Aakash Educational Services Limited. Whether the balance of convenience lies in favor of granting the interim relief.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the increase in authorized share capital of Aakash would dilute TLPL's shareholding from 25% to 5%, thereby reducing the value of the debtor's assets available for distribution to creditors. The respondents argued that the EGM was called by the board of Aakash, an independent company, and the RP had not objected to the proposed resolution plan which contemplated such restructuring.

Ratio Decidendi

For grant of interim injunction, the applicant must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience in its favor, and irreparable injury. In the present case, the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case as the RP had not objected to the proposed resolution plan which contemplated the restructuring, and the balance of convenience was against granting the relief.

Judgment Excerpts

The RP has since been appointed. The CoC of TLPL is principally constituted of M/s Glas Trust Company, the appellant herein, and it is stated to have 99.41% voting share. Alleging that the increase in the share capital of Akash would reduce the percentage of shareholding of TLPL from about 25% to about 5% and dilute its value of the shares, Glas Trust, the principal member of the CoC of TLPL, has filed this appeal.

Procedural History

The Adjudicating Authority admitted TLPL into CIRP on 16.07.2024. Subsequently, Aakash proposed an EGM to increase its authorized share capital. The appellant filed an appeal before NCLAT seeking interim relief to restrain the EGM. The NCLAT heard the application for interim relief and dismissed it on 28.10.2025.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Tribunals NCLAT Dismisses Appeal Against EGM for Share Capital Increase in Insolvency Context — No Prima Facie Case for Injunction as RP Had Not Objected to Proposed Resolution Plan. The court held that the appellant, a financial creditor with 99.41% voting ...
Related Judgement
Tribunals NCLAT Dismisses Appeal Against Rejection of Recall Application in Insolvency Matter — Consent Order Cannot Be Recalled Without Proof of Fraud or Lack of Jurisdiction. The Tribunal held that a consent order cannot be recalled under Rule 11 of NCLT R...