Apollo Green Energy Limited vs Power2Sme Private Limited

Apollo Green Energy Ltd. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Power2SME Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocates. For Respondents : Ms. Sanya Kumar, Mr. Harsh Jain, Mr. Chiranjeev Singh Marwaha, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) [Per: Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan (Oral)] 14.07.2026: IA No. 4716 of 2026- Heard Ld. Counsel for the

Appellant as well as Ld. Counsel for the Sole Respondent. Perused the

record.

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, we find that

the delay of three days which has occurred in filing the appeal has been

sufficiently explained.

In view of above, the application for condonation of delay is allowed

and the delay of 3 days which has occurred in filing the appeal is hereby

condoned.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1219 of 2026

Heard Ld. Counsel for the appellant, Ld. Counsel for the

Respondent. Perused the record.

2

2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant who was

Respondent before Ld. Adjudicating Authority challenging the impugned

order dated 27.05.2026 passed in CP-IB-112/ND/2026 passed by National

Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Court- V whereby the opportunity of the

Respondent (Appellant before us) to file the reply was closed and Counsel for

the parties were directed to file written submissions.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that only one opportunity of 7

days was given by Ld. Adjudicating Authority to file the reply and the

appellant has made all sincere efforts to file the reply before the Ld.

Adjudicating Authority within the period stipulated, however, on 26.05.2026

the appellant made multiple attempts to file the reply but the same could

not be filed because of some technical issue at the end of the NCLT, New

Delhi.

4. It is further submitted that upon discovering that there is some

problem with the e-filing portal of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority the

appellant took immediate steps and sent a letter/communication to the Ld.

Registrar of the NCLT on 26.05.2026 itself, writing his grievances and it is in

this background the reply could not be filed on 26.05.2026 and when the

matter was taken up by Ld. Adjudicating Authority on 27.05.2026 the

impugned order has been passed whereby the opportunity to file reply so far

as the appellant is concerned, has been closed.

5. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that his only concern is that

the petition which has been filed before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority 3

should be disposed of at the earliest and the Appellant (Respondent before

the tribunal) is making all attempts to delay the proceedings.

6. It is further submitted that the parties have filed written submissions

and even written submissions filed by the appellant (Respondent before the

tribunal) may also be taken as its reply.

7. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is

reflected that only one opportunity had been given to the Appellant

(Respondent before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority) to file the reply within a

week. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that on 26.05.2026

he was not able to e-file the reply as there was some technical glitch at the

end of the Ld. NCLT and in this regard he has also moved an

application/communication to the Ld. Registrar of NCLT.

8. We prima facie find substance in the submissions made by Ld.

Counsel for the Appellant that the reply on 26.05.2026 could not be e-filed

by Appellant due to some problem occurred at the end of NCLT and in this

regard a communication was also written by Counsel for the Appellant to

Registrar NCLT.

9. Thus, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of this case,

we permit the appellant to file the reply (e-filing as well as physical filing)

before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority by tomorrow i.e. 15.07.2026.

10. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that the he will not

file any rejoinder to the reply which may be filed by the (Respondent before

the Adjudicating Authority). His statement is taken on record. 4

11. The written submissions have already been filed by the parties before

the Ld. Adjudicating Authority therefore, we request Ld. Adjudicating

Authority to dispose of the petition at the earliest.

12. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that he will not take

seek any adjournment when the petition would be listed before the Ld.

Adjudicating Authority for hearing of submissions.

13. Appeal is thus disposed of in above terms.

[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)

[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) sr/mr