Balsam Properties Private Limited And ... vs Registrar Of Companies Pune

1

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI COMPANY APPEAL (AT) NO.282 OF 2025 & IA No.6656, 6757 of 2025 In the matter of: Balsam Properties Pvt Ltd & Ors Appellant Vs Registrar of Companies, Pune Respondent For Appellant: Mr. Vishesh Kalra, Advocate. For Respondent: None ORDER

HYBRID MODE 04.12.2025: This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order

dated 17.03.2025. The appeal was filed on 12.08.2025 and hence there is a

delay of 102 days and the application for condonation of delay bearing no. 6757

of 2025 is moved. In the said application, it is stated the order dated 17.03.2025

was never pronounced on 17.03.2025 in open court and it was uploaded only on

01.07.2025 and if the limitation period is counted from 01.07.2025, then the

appeal shall be within the limitation period.

2. Reliance has been made on Sanjay Pandurang Kalate Vs Vistra ITCL (India)

Ltd (2024) 3 SCC 27 to say the limitation would start from the date, the order is

uploaded. Para 19 of the said judgement is relevant as under:-

19. In the present case, the cause list for 17 May 2023 placed on record by the appellant indicates that the case was listed for admission and not for pronouncement. Further, on a specific 2

query of the Court, it is not in dispute between counsel for the appellant and the respondent, that no substantive order was passed on 17 May 2023 by the NCLT. In these circumstances, limitation would not begin to run on 17 May 2023 which was the date on which hearings concluded. As no order was passed before 30 May 2023, there was no occasion for the appellant to lodge an application for a certified copy on 17 May 2023. Time for filing an appeal would commence only when the order appealed from was uploaded since prior to that date no order was pronounced.

3. Now if one peruse para 19 of the said judgement, it would show the order

was never pronounced on 17th May, 2023 i.e. on the date fixed fixed before the

Ld. Tribunal and rather it was uploaded on 30th May, 2025 and in these

circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held since the order was not

pronounced in open court on 17.05.2023, the limitation would start from the

date when it was uploaded i.e. from 30.05.2025. However, in the instant case,

if one peruse the impugned order dated 17.05.2025, the attendance of the

learned counsel for the petitioner is noted in the impugned order, hence it cannot

be said the order was not pronounced in the open court or that the learned

counsel for the appellant was though present in the Court on 17.05.2025 but

the order was not pronounced in his presence. We are not inclined to adhere to

the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant as are against the record

of Ld. NCLT and as there exists a presumption qua the correctness of judicial

record.

4. Thus the application being not within 45+45 days per Section 421 of the

Companies Act, 2013 hence it is dismissed per law settled in Bengal Chemists

and Druggists Association Vs Kalyan Chowdhury (2018) 3 SCC 41. 3

5. Pending IAs No.6755 and 6756 of 2025 are also disposed of.

(Justice Yogesh Khanna) Member (Judicial)

(Mr Indevar Pandey) Member (Technical) Bm/rr