AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
03.09.2026 These three company appeals, as of today they dwell upon peculiar facts and circumstances owing to the final adjudication made before the Ld. NCLT, Mumbai Bench in CP/761(MB)/2017, whereby the proceedings under Section 241-242 and 244 of the Companies Act, have been finally adjudicated by the Ld. Tribunal vide its judgment of 18.08.2026, observing thereof that all interim orders, obviously would stand merged with the final adjudication made by the Ld. Tribunal.
So far as the present appeals are concerned, Company Appeal (AT) No. 259 of 2026, the Appellant had challenged the impugned order of 06.03.2026 that was passed in I.A. No. 135/2024. The nature of the order which was put to challenge before this Tribunal, in fact, takes the shape of being an Interlocutory Order, because in consequence of the impugned order, it has resultantly led to dismissal of I.A. No. 135/2024 by granting a partial relief.
This Company Appeal was accompanied with the I.A. No. 4756/2026 wherein the Appellant has prayed for condonation of 30 days’ of delay that has occurred in preferring the appeal. Unfortunately, it went unnoticed by this appellate tribunal, when the pleadings were directed to be exchanged, that there happened to be a delay in filing the appeal and the delay condonation application was kept pending. But since, under the changed circumstances, we are finally closing this Company Appeal, we are finally closing the I.A. No. 4756/2026, too by condoning the delay 27 days that has chanced in preferring the appeal, owing to the reasons that has been assigned in the application itself, which we find to be satisfactory.
The connected Company Appeal, being Company Appeal (AT) No. 312/2025 the Appellant challenges the impugned order dated 17.10.2025 as passed in I.A. No. 135/2025 that was preferred in the Company Petition. The resultant effect of the impugned order under challenged has been there was a direction issued for supplying the requisite documents and the consent form, which was referred to therein, but still this impugned order too would be an order to be treated as to be as an order passed during the pendency of the proceedings of the Company Petition CP/761(MB)/2017, hence its an interlocutory order as per Rule 2(1a) of NCLT Rules.
This Company appeal has a pending Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 7651/2025, wherein the Appellant has sought an condonation of 2 days’ delay that has chanced in preferring the Company Appeal. After having heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties on the delay condonation application and finding the reasons to be satisfactory, we condone the delay hence I.A. No. 7651/2025 would stand allowed. This company appeal too would stand merged with the final adjudication made by the Ld. Tribunal by judgment of 18.08.2026.
In Company Appeal (AT) No. 313/2025, the Appellant is yet again before us against another order passed on 20.11.2025 in I.A. No. 135/2024, which was preferred in the Company Petition, whereby certain directions were issued to be complied with as regards ensuring the presence of one of Directors.
When these matters were taken up, in all these three appeals today, there was joint statement made by the Learned Counsel for the parties, intimating this Tribunal that since the proceedings under Section 241, 242 and 244, preferred before the Ld. NCLT, Mumbai, in the shape of Company Petition CP/761(MB)/2017 has been finally adjudicated upon, and, owing to the fact of final determination made, and particularly the observation made therein that all interim order passed during the pendency of the proceedings of the Company Petition would stand merged in the final order. We are not required to venture on the merits of these three Company Appeals and hence the appeals would stand closed.
Having closed these company appeals, owing to the final determination made in the Company Petition, subject to the condition that the Appellant, if so chooses, to prefer an appeal, being against the said final judgment of dated 18.08.2026, all contentions would be left open for the appellant to be agitated, if so advised, and it will be open for the Respondent to raise all his contentions in contravention thereto, including the contentions pertaining to the issue of maintainability. Subject to the above, these company appeals would stand closed.