Ace Infrabuild And Developers Private ... vs For Appellant:Mr Anuj Tiwari
- CitationCOMPANY APPEAL (AT) NO.336 OF 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may correct a clerical or typographical error in its own order, such as a wrongly recorded Corporate Identification Number, where the correct particulars are shown by the record before it, namely the application filed on first motion and the company master data annexed to it, and the error is apparent from comparing those documents with the order.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI COMPANY APPEAL (AT) NO.336 OF 2024 In the matter of: Ace Infrabuild and Developers Pvt Ltd & Ors Appellant
For appellant:Mr Anuj Tiwari, Advocate, Ms Aroshi Pal, Ms Bandita, Ms Monica, Mr Kaushal Vaid, Advocates. For Respondent: ORDER
HYBRID MODE 16.10.2024: IA No.7120/2024 has been filed by the appellant under
Rule 14 read with Rule 11 of NCLAT Rules, 2016 seeking exemption from
filing eligible and typed copies of the dim and illegible annexures. Learned
counsel for the appellant submit in view of the urgency in the matter, the
appellant humbly seeks exemption from filing legible and typed copies of dim
and illegible annexures. Acceding to the prayer, IA is allowed.
2. This appeal is filed against the impugned order dated 25.09.2024
passed by Ld. NCLT, Chandigarh-IV in Comp appl/155(CH)2024 in CA (CAA)
No.48/CHD/Hry/2023 whereby an application under Rule 11 of the NCLAt
Rules, 2016 for seeking correction in the original order dated 13.06.2024 was
dismissed qua transferor company No.3 with regard to the CIN U45200H
R 2007 PTC 0366901 viz transferor company No.3.
3. It is submitted the actual CIN No. of transferor company No.3 is
U45200HR2007PTC036690 which was wrongly typed in the order dated
13.06.2024 as U45200HR2007PTC036691 2
4. Though an application was moved for correcting the said mistake but
was rejected.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken us to the application of
first motion filed before the Ld. NCLT wherein the CIN is mentioned as
U45200HR2007PTC036690. Even Company Master Data (at Page 86 of the
Paper Book) as also para 3(i) of the application of 1st motion, the correct CIN
is mentioned i.e. U45200HR2007PTC036690. It is the submission of the
learned counsel for appellant there is an omission made by the Ld. NCLT in
noting the correct CIN number as is mentioned in various documents, filed
alongwith application of first motion.
6. We have also gone through the record and find that the correct CIN No.
is U45200HR2007PTC036690.
7. Considering the above facts, CIN No. of Transferor Company No.3 is
corrected to U45200HR2007PTC036690 in the impugned order. A copy of
this order be sent to all concerned by the appellant.
8. In view of the above the appeal stands disposed of.
(Justice Yogesh Khanna) Member (Judicial)
(Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra) Member (Technical)
Bm/md
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free