AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Hybrid Mode)
I.A. No. 2500 of 2026: This is an application for condonation of delay of 66 days in re-filing the present appeal. Considering the submissions made in this application, the delay in re-filing is appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of.
This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated 25.11.2025 wherein an application viz CA/275/ND/2025, under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, seeking recall of order dated 14.10.2025, was dismissed as the Ld. NCLT noted there was no valid reasons mentioned in the application to recall the order dated 14.10.2025.
The order dated 14.10.2025 read as under:
“CP/56/ND/2022 This Tribunal vide order dated 18.02.2025 had directed the respondent to cure the defects in the reply and upload the same on e-portal of the Tribunal. As per the order dated 01.07.2025 all the parties were directed to complete the pleadings in the main -2-matter i.e. CP/56/ND/2022 as well as IAs. However, till today i.e. 14.10.2025 the reply on behalf of the respondent is still not on record. The matter is pending since 2022 and therefore, this Tribunal is not inclined to give further time for completion of pleadings. Therefore, the opportunity to file the reply on behalf of the respondent stands closed. List for arguments on 25.11.2025.”
If one peruse the application for recall filed by the Appellant herein it shows the reply as is mentioned in CP/56/ND/2022 was filed by the Appellant on 01.06.2022 within the prescribed time limit, but due to technical procedural lapses, reply was not reflecting on the NCLT portal despite having been filed and acknowledged. The filing receipt and screenshot of the DMS Portal were also annexed with the application as Annexure-2 (Colly).
It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant no defect notice or intimation was ever received from the Registry of the Ld. NCLT regarding the filing and thus the Appellant was under a bonafide belief the reply was duly taken on record. The reference was also made to Rule 4 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 qua the scrutiny of the appeal and to intimate the defects, if any.
The said Rule 4 is as under:
“(2)If, on scrutiny, the appeal or petition or application or document is found to be defective, such document shall, after notice to the party, be returned for compliance and if there is a failure to comply within seven days from the date of return, the same shall be placed before the Registrar who may pass appropriate orders.
(3)The Registrar may for sufficient cause return the said document for rectification or amendment to the party filing the same, and for this purpose may allow to the party concerned such reasonable time as he may consider necessary or extend the time for compliance.
(4)Where the party fails to take any step for the removal of the defect within the time fixed for the same, the Registrar may, for -3-reasons to be recorded in writing, decline to register the pleading or document.”
It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant no notice or intimation was ever issued by the Registry to the Respondents nor any defect was intimated for rectification and thus the Appellant was under a bonafide believe the reply was duly accepted and was placed on record. It is submitted the order dated 18.02.2025; relied upon in the order dated 14.10.2025 was passed in another IA and not in the Company Petition, which was wrongly inferred as an order passed in the Company Petition.
Considering the submissions, we find merit in the application to recall the order dated 14.10.2025 and as such the impugned order dated 25.11.2025 as also the order dated 14.10.2025 are set aside to the extent that the reply of the Appellant herein to the said company petition be now taken on record and the petition be proceeded with. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Pending application(s) viz. I.A. Nos. 2500, 2552, 2553 of 2026 are also disposed of. The rights and contentions of both the parties shall remain intact.