Green Valley Jatro- Energy ... vs Registrar Of Companies Delhi And ...

Company Appeal (AT) No.27 of 2026 & I.A. No.272 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: Green Valley Jatro-Energy Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Appellants Vs. Registrar of Companies, Delhi & Haryana & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Kunal Surhatia, Advocate For Respondent: ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

25.08.2026 - The appellant has preferred the instant company appeal

being aggrieved, as against the impugned order dated 16.09.2025, as passed

by the learned NCLT, New Delhi. By virtue of which the Restoration

Application No.50/ND/2025, seeking recall of the Order dated 20.05.2025,

which has been passed in Appeal No.63/ND/252/2023 was rejected.

2. This company appeal was accompanied with a delay condonation

application in refiling of the company appeal being I.A. No.272 of 2026 where

condonation of delay was sought of 36 days that had chanced.

3. Having heard the learned Counsel for appellant on the delay in refiling

and after going through the grounds taken in the delay condonation

application in refiling, the company appeal, finding the same to be satisfactory

coupled with the fact that the delay in refiling being an exclusive issue

between the appellant and the Tribunal, the delay in refiling would stand

condoned. Accordingly, I.A. No.272 of 2026 would stand allowed. None 2

appears for the respondent. We proceed to hear the appellant on merits of the

company appeal.

4. The issue involved herein is that the Restoration Application, that has

been decided by the learned Tribunal by the impugned Order, it simply

mentions that, there was no valid reason assigned by the appellant in the

restoration application and as such, seeking recall of the Order dated

20.05.2025, dismissing the company appeal for want of prosecution, has been

directed to be rejected.

5. Considering the pleadings in the Restoration Application that, has been

placed on record by the appellant, the appellant while invoking Rule 11 of the

NCLT Rules had submitted that when the matter was taken up on

20.05.2025, the Counsel for the parties have informed the Court that, the

pleadings are complete and the case be listed for final hearing on some other

day. The said request made by the Counsel for the appellant was not acceded

to and the matter was despite of it directed to be proceeded for hearing. It is

owing to the absence of the Counsel for the appellant, the company appeal

was dismissed on 20.05.2025 and the reason for the absence has been

specifically assigned by the appellant in paragraphs - 10 and 11 of the

application. So far as the issue pertaining to the consideration of restoration

is concerned, the law always postulates that, all efforts are to be made by the

Tribunal or an adjudicating authority, that the lis has to be decided on its

own merits rather than on technicalities of restoration and more particularly,

in the instant case, when the dismissal for default has taken place on

20.05.2025 and the appellant has filed a restoration application immediately 3

thereafter within 5 days i.e. on 25.05.2025 which was attributable to the

Counsel's expectation of fixing of date for hearing, that is well within the

limitation period as prescribed therein.

6. Considering the application in itself and the ground which has not been

taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal, we feel that the appeal

deserved to be restored.

7. Accordingly, the impugned Order dated 16.09.2025 would stand

quashed. The Company Appeal is allowed. The Appeal No.63/ND/252/2023

would stand restored on the Board of NCLT, New Delhi to be decided on

merits.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) rs/ravi