Kamal Kumar vs Pawan Kumar Aggarwal & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 366 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The reasoning here is thin but present: the Tribunal states that the appellant's reply is to be accepted without enforcing the prior-deposit-of-costs condition, that the costs direction is quashed upon filing the reply in compliance, and that failing filing the earlier effect of the order revives. The operative principle is that a condition precedent to acceptance of a reply (prior payment of costs) may be relaxed on the strength of the party's undertaking to file the reply promptly, with the cost order's effect conditioned on compliance. A tribunal may dispense with a requirement that costs be deposited before a reply is received, where the party gives an undertaking to file the reply forthwith; in that event the cost order, as to the imposition of costs, stands quashed upon compliance with the undertaking, and if the undertaking is not performed the original order revives.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Company Appeal (AT) No. 366 of 2026 & I.A. No. 7125 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: Kamal Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
Pawan Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Mayank Sharma, Mr. Arindam Sarin, Mr. Dev Narain Tiwari, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Pulkit Atal, Adv.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
01.10.2026: The appellant before us is an opposite party to the
proceedings before the Ld. Tribunal. By virtue of the impugned order, he
questions only part of the order that is put to challenge. The issue is with
regard to the imposition of cost upon him because of his dereliction for not
filing the reply despite the several opportunities being granted to him by the
Ld. NCLT. Conduct of appellant is deprecated.
2. Ld. Tribunal had further proceeded to direct that the receipt of the
reply would be subject to the prior payment of cost, and it is because of that
reason the appellant is before us, is submitting that, though he is intending
to file his reply today itself, but it's because of the rider attached in the order
that the acceptance of the reply would be subject to the prior payment of
cost, he is unable to file the reply. He says that he will file the reply during -2-
the course of the day itself, and if it is not filed, his opportunity for filing the
reply may be deemed to be closed.
3. Having heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and exclusively taking
into consideration the undertaking given by the appellant. He is directed to
file the affidavit/reply during the course of the day, same would be accepted,
without enforcing the condition of payment cost. The same would be
accepted by the Registry without deposition of the cost. If it is not filed today,
the effect of the order will revive back to take it separately.
4. Subject to filing of reply in compliance of above directions, the part of
the order of imposition of cost would stand quashed.
5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)
[Mr. Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)
[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical)
SA/rr
Company Appeal (AT) No. 366 of 2026
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