AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HYBRID MODE
Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None for the Respondent despite advance notice served. Considering the formal nature of the impugned order we proceed to dispose of the appeal.
This appeal is filed by the appellant against an impugned order dated 09.03.2026 passed by Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi in CP No.69/ND/2021. It is submitted by the learned counsel on 1st September, 2025, Mr. Akshay Rinee, Ld. counsel appeared on behalf of the Respondent Nos 1 to 7 had sought liberty to file additional documents. However, the said order was not complied with and no additional documents were filed or brought on record, hence the Ld. NCLT imposed a cost of Rs.50,000/- for wasting the precious time of the Court and right to file additional document was closed.
It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant on earlier eighteen occasions the matter could not be heard due to paucity of time, hence the imposition of cost was not justified, considering the fact the earlier counsel was changed and a new counsel was engaged.
We are not inclined to say anything against the impugned order since the earlier orders as alleged are not before us but admittedly when opportunity was given to file documents; those were not filed. Hence, we dispose of this appeal by giving further opportunity to the appellant to move an application of recall before the Ld. NCLT for waiver of cost and as to relevancy of documents, in view of submissions made before us. The respondents shall have the right to raise contentions before the Ld. NCLT.
With the above observations we dispose of the appeal.
Pending IAs No.2924 to 2926 of 2026 are also disposed of.