AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Vivek Sinha, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Yash Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent. The present Appeal has been preferred under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 against an innocuous order dated 14.11.2022 whereby, Ld. NCLT has fixed date in IA CA 13/JPR/ 2022 on the request made on behalf of the Appellant/ Applicant himself. Considering the fact that the date was fixed by NCLT on the request of the Appellant herein itself, such order cannot be considered as an order whereby the Appellant can be said to aggrieved. It goes without saying that an appeal can be preferred under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 once the party is aggrieved. It is profitable to reproduce the impugned order as follows:
“Heard Mr. Amol Vyas, Adv. appearing on behalf of Petitioner and Mr. AK Sharma, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Yash Sharma, Adv. for the Respondent. Ms. Pooja Singh, JTA for the RoC.
IA (CA) No. 13/JPR/2022 & IA (CA) No. 34/JPR/2022:
These applications have been filed by the Applicant (Mr. Birender Kediya). Reply to IA (CA) No. 13/JPR/2022 has been filed by the Respondent. Learned Counsel for the Applicant has filed rejoinder to the reply and copy of the same has been received by Mr. Amol Vyas, Adv. for the Respondent. He submits that copy of the rejoinder has been received by him only yesterday. He seeks time to argue the matter. List the matter on 25.11.2022 as fixed time matter at 12:30 PM”.
On Examination of the aforesaid order there is no reason to pass any other than to dismiss the appeal.
The Appeal stands dismissed.