Kerala High Court Halts Appointment of New SNDP Directors Pending Appeal

The Kerala High Court has temporarily restrained the appointment of new directors to the SNDP Yogam following an appeal filed by Vellappally Natesan and other affected office-bearers challenging their removal.

A Division Bench passed an interim order directing that no further steps be taken to appoint replacement directors until the matter is heard in detail. The Court emphasized maintaining the current position for the time being.

The appeal arises from an earlier judgment that declared several SNDP office-bearers disqualified under provisions of the Companies Act, citing failure to file mandatory financial statements over a continuous period. That ruling had also directed the State to initiate steps for appointing new directors.

Challenging the decision, the appellants contended that the findings regarding non-compliance were factually incorrect. They submitted that the required filings had been made, but certain procedural or administrative issues prevented proper recording. It was also argued that some relevant documents were not accessible due to ongoing legal proceedings.

Taking note of these submissions, the Division Bench decided to stay the process of appointing new directors until the appeal is considered further.

The case is expected to be taken up again later this month. The interim order ensures that no structural changes are made to the organisation’s leadership until the Court delivers a more detailed ruling.

Description: The Kerala High Court has issued an interim order restraining the appointment of new directors to the SNDP Yogam after Vellappally Natesan and others challenged their removal from office. The Division Bench directed that status quo be maintained, preventing any further steps toward replacing the existing leadership until the appeal is heard in detail. The challenge arises from a prior ruling that disqualified certain office-bearers under the Companies Act for alleged failure to file financial statements for consecutive years. The appellants argue that the findings are incorrect, stating that filings were made but not properly recorded due to administrative complications, and that some documents were unavailable during proceedings. Taking note of these submissions, the Court has temporarily paused the implementation of the earlier judgment. The matter is expected to be taken up for further consideration later this month.