Chiron Metco Private Limited vs Ayush Gupta
- CitationCOMPANY APPEAL (AT) NO.104 OF 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal declined to interfere with the Adjudicating Authority's refusal to recall an interim status quo order where the appellants had not objected to that order when they appeared and filed their reply, and the subject property was the company's only asset; the Tribunal disposed of the appeal with a direction that the company petition be heard and decided expeditiously and without being influenced by any finding made in the interim 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.104 OF 2026 In the matter of: Chiron Metco Private Limited & Ors Appellant Vs Ayush Gupta and Ors Respondent For Appellant:Mr Pratik Tripathi, PCS. For Respondent:Mr Sandeep Bajaj, Mr Mayank Biyhani, Advocates, Mr Ashish O Lalpuria, PCS. ORDER
HYBRID MODE 27.03.2026: This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated 06.01.2026
passed by the Ld. NCLT, Mumbai Bench whereby an IA(CA) 54/2023 in
CP/18(MB)2024 was dismissed. Admittedly the company petition was filed on
20.02.2024 and on 26.02.2024 an ex parte stay was granted with regard to the
sale of the only asset of the company. The appellants put in their appearance on
06.03.2024 and sought time to file reply. The impugned order notes the counsel
appeared on 06.03.2024 and did not object to the interim protection. The reply
was filed on 16.05.2024 and even on that day there was no objection raised to
the protective order. However, one year later on 17.03.2025, IA No.54/2025
was filed for recall of the order dated 26.02.2024 qua status quo on the only
property of the company. The ground of challenge were an irregular service of
the petition and suppression of rejection of interim protection by the Ld. Civil
Court Mhow. However, we note these fact were duly considered by the Ld. NCLT 2
in the impugned order, more specifically in its para 14 wherein they noted the
appellant never objected to the interim protection till the filing of the application
of recall. Even otherwise, the company petition is now ripe for final hearing and
is listed on 06.04.2026. Considering the submissions made by both the parties,
we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order as admittedly the subject
property is the only property of the company and even when, the matter is listed
before the Ld. NCLT on 06.04.2026 for final arguments. Thus we dispose of this
appeal with a request to Ld. NCLT to hear the matter and to decide it
expeditiously and that while deciding be not influenced on any finding given in
the interim order.
2. With these observations the appeal stands disposed of.
3. Pending IA No.2099/2066 is also disposed of.
(Justice Yogesh Khanna) Member (Judicial)
(Mr. Naresh Salecha) Member (Technical) Bm/rr
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