Jeppiaar Fishing Harbour Muttom Pvt Ltd vs Jeppiaar Sheela

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 37/2023 (IA Nos. 361, 362/2023)) (Filed under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013) (Arising out of the Impugned Order dated 30/11/2022 in IA/30/CHE/2022 in C.P./131/(CHE)/2021, passed by the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench) In the matter of: Jeppiar Fishing Harbour Muttom Pvt. Ltd. ....Appellant V Jeppiar Sheela ....Respondent Present : For Appellant : Mr. Naveen Kumar Murthi, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. R. Swarnavel, Advocate.

(ORAL) ORDER

(Virtual Mode) [Per; Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (JM)]

19/04/2023: This Appeal is directed against the Order dated

30.11.2022, by which, the National Company Law Tribunal, Division

Bench, Court-I, Chennai, has closed the defence of the Respondent and

forfeited her right to file the Reply.

2. We have heard Counsel for the parties in detail and are of the

considered opinion that it would be just an expedient if one more opportunity

is granted to the Respondent (Appellant) to file their Reply within the period

prescribed by this Tribunal subject to payment of compensatory cost.

Comp. App. (AT) (CH) No. 37/2023 Page 1 of 2

3. Accordingly, the Appellant (Respondent) is granted one more

opportunity to file the Reply within a period of 1 week from the date of

passing of this Order subject to payment of Rs.1.5Lakhs/- i.e., which shall

be paid by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of both the Appellants of

a sum of Rs.7500/- each.

4. It is made clear that the payment of cost is pre requisite for the purpose

of filing of the Reply. In case cost is not paid, then the Registry is directed

not take the Reply of the Respondent.

5. With these observations, the present Appeal is hereby allowed and the

Impugned Order is set aside.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Shreesha Merla] Member (Technical)

himanshu/md

Comp. App. (AT) (CH) No. 37/2023 Page 2 of 2