Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 09 NCLAT CK 5967

Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi vs Goyal Energy And Steel Pvt. Ltd.

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi · Decided on 29 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan, Member (Judicial) · Naresh Salecha, Member (Technical)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
I.A. No. 6989 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1226 of 2026

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

6 paragraphs · 346 words

I.A. No. 6989 of 2026- Heard Shri Prafful Saini, Ld. Counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

Nobody is present for the Respondents. It is informed by Ld. Counsel for the appellant that Respondents have been served in advance. Otherwise also the prayer sought in the aforesaid IA is purely of correction of a typographical error/clerical error which is not having any effect on the merit of the order pronounced by us.

Ld. Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention towards the order dated 29.07.2026 whereon the judgment was reserved and it is highlighted that on that day this Appellate Tribunal has heard “Mr. Harshit Khare, Mr. Prafful Saini, Mr. Ayuj Agrawal & Mr. Brijesh Gupta, Advocates"; however, when the judgment was pronounced on 21.08.2026 the name of Mr. Arpit Singhvi Advocate has been shown therein as Counsel for the Appellant.

It is submitted that it appears that due to typographical error the name of an Advocate, who is not connected with this appeal, has been in advertently shown in the judgment and therefore the same may kindly be corrected.

We have perused the order dated 29.07.2026 as well as judgment dated 21.08.2026 and are in agreement with the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. It is reflected that the name of Mr. Arpit Singhvi shown as the Counsel for the Appellant in the judgment is due to in advertent typographical error and the same is required to be corrected.

The prayer sought is purely of correction of typographical/clerical error and is not having any effect on the merits of the judgment pronounced by us. Thus the aforesaid IA is disposed of in terms that in the judgment dated 21.08.2026 passed in CA (AT) (Ins) No.1226 of 2026 the name of Mr. Harshit Khare, Mr. Prafful Saini, Mr. Ayuj Agrawal & Mr. Brijesh Gupta, Advocates shall be read in place of Mr. Arpit Singhvi, Advocate. If a certified copy of the judgment dated 21.08.2026 has already been issued the same may also be corrected by the office in view of this order.