Apollo Green Energy Limited vs Royal Cap House

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

Versus

Royal Cap House ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocates. For Respondents : Appearnce not marked.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

22.07.2026: Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant as well as Ld.

Counsel for the Respondent.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the

order dated 29.05.2026 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New

Delhi, Court-V, in IB-611/ND/2025 whereby the opportunity of the

Appellant/Respondent to file the reply was closed.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant/Respondent submits that he in

pursuance of the order of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has filed the reply

online on 03.02.2026 however certain defects were raised by the Registry

which were removed and they re-filed the reply on 20.02.2026.

4. It is further submitted that thereafter certain defects were again raised

by the Registry and due to the fault of the clerk of the Appellant the same 2

defect could not noticed and could not be removed and on 29.05.2026 when

the matter was again placed before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority the

impugned order was passed and the right of the appellant to file the reply

was closed.

5. It is also submitted that the Appellant/Respondent was diligently

pursuing 'lis' before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority and it was due to the

circumstances beyond the control of the appellant he could not get the

defects removed and only one opportunity be provided to the

Appellant/Respondent to file the reply.

6. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent however vehemently opposes the

submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and it is submitted that

the defects were deliberately not removed within time and the statement of

Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that the entire defects were removed and the

reply was re-filed on 20.02.2026 is not correct and the endeavour of the

appellant is to keep the proceedings pending.

7. It is further submitted that there is no illegality or to say any

irregularity in the impugned judgment and the same be sustained.

8. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. It appears to be an admitted situation that a petition was filed by the

Respondent No. 1 under Section 9 of the IBC and was placed before the Ld.

Adjudicating Authority for the first time on 20.11.2025 whereon the notice

was issued to the Respondents and the matter was directed to be listed on

19.12.2025. However, on that day the matter could not be taken and the

matter was notified for 17.02.2026. On 17.02.2026 when the matter was 3

taken, statement was made by Ld. Counsel for the Appellant before the Ld.

Adjudicating Authority that they have already filed their reply. On

10.04.2026, the matter was not taken up due to paucity of time and it was

on 29.05.2026 the impugned order has been passed.

10. During the course of hearing, the print out of the e-filing portal of the

Ld. Adjudicating Authority has been placed before us with regard to the

instant matter and it appears from the same that the reply online was filed

by the appellant on 03.02.2026. This fact has also not been denied by Ld.

Counsel for the Respondent. The only laxity which appears to have been

committed by the appellant is of not removing the defects in reply, for which

an explanation has been given by the Appellant that the clerk of the Counsel

for the Appellant was not diligent and after re-filing of the reply on

20.02.2026 the fresh defects raised by the Registry could not be noticed by

the clerk of the Counsel for the Appellant and due to this the same could not

be timely removed and by passing the impugned order the opportunity to file

reply has been closed.

11. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of this case and

having an eye on the fact that the matter before the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority is still at the stage of hearing and the written submissions have

also been filed by the parties, we permit the Appellant to remove the defects

raised by the Registry of the Adjudicating Authority, with regard to the reply

filed by him within next seven days, positively and if the defects as indicated

by the Registry of the Adjudicating Authority is removed within the period 4

stipulated by us the reply filed by the Appellant/Respondent may be taken

on record and the hard copy of the same, if required may also be taken.

12. In this scenario the Respondent (Applicant before Ld. Adjudicating

Authority) may also file rejoinder to the reply filed by the appellant within

next 7 days.

13. Thereafter the matter shall be taken to its logical end by the Ld.

Adjudicating Authority strictly in accordance with law.

14. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of this case and

finding that there are certain lapses, which has been admittedly committed

by the appellant, we direct that the appellant shall deposit Rs. 25,000/- in

the Prime Ministers Relief Fund within 5 days from today.

15. If the cost as indicated by us is not deposited within the period

stipulated herein above, the Appellant will not get any benefit of this order.

16. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.

[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)

[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) sr/mr