Tribunals and CommissionsFull Bench(2025) 05 NCLAT CK 1396

Anil Kashi Drolia vs Bank of Maharashtra & Anr.

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 6 May 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rakesh Kumar Jain, Member (Judicial) · Naresh Salecha, Member (Technical) · Indevar Pandey, Member (Technical)
CASE NUMBER
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1485 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5107, 5400, 5401 of

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 324 words

Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain; (Oral)

This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.04.2024 by which the Appellant has been saddled with a cost of Rs. 50,000/- which has been ordered to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within 10 days from the date of the order.

2.

In brief, the Appellant (RP) was appointed as such on 16.01.2024 and was ordered to file his report within 10 days from the date of order i.e. up to 26.01.2024, however, the Appellant submitted its report online on 12.03.2024 and physical copy was filed on 26.03.2024.

3.

Thus, it is clear that the Appellant caused the delay of more than two months in filing the report despite the fact that he was categorically asked to file the same within 10 days from 16.01.2024.

4.

The Tribunal has observed that if there was any difficulty on the part of the Appellant in filing the report within the prescribed time, he could have sought an extension of time by filing an appropriate application but the Appellant did not care to seek extension of time and delayed the report by two months.

5.

The Tribunal found that the delay was inordinate and the explanation given was not satisfactory, therefore, imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/-.

5.

In the present appeal, the Appellant has argued that the report could not be filed because of the ill health of his father who resides in the State of Bihar.

6.

However, during the course of hearing, he submitted that his father suffered paralyse about 10 years back, therefore, we are also not satisfied with the reason assigned by the Appellant for not filing the report within the prescribed time.

7.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed though without any order as to costs.

I.As, if any, pending is/are hereby closed.