Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Kishore Kakumal Keswani vs Manohar Kakumal Keswani & Ors. & Ors

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal31 August 2026

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The appeal against rejection of an amendment application is closed without a merits decision because the main petition has already been heard and reserved for judgment, so any amended pleadings could not be incorporated and considered on merits at that stage; the question of the amendment's propriety is left open to be raised on appeal from the final judgment, in light of Section 105 of the CPC.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) No. 284 of 2026

IN THE MATTER OF: Kishore Kakumal Keswani ...Appellant Versus Manohar Kakumal Keswani & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, Sr. Advocate with Adv. C. Priyadarshi, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Rishav Banerjee, Mr. Ativ Patel, Ms. Priyanka Vora and Ms. Anshika Prakash, Advocates for R-1 & R-2.

Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Cavetor.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

31.08.2026: The Appellant has come before us, being aggrieved by the

impugned Order dated 24.06.2026 that was passed in Company Petition No.

1300 of 2020. The learned Tribunal, while considering Company Application

No. 28 of 2026 preferred by the Appellant, seeking to bring about certain

amendments in the pleadings, had rejected the proposed amendment to be

permitted to be carried.

2. In this Company Appeal, during its pendency, the main CP has

already concluded and the judgment in the same has been reserved.

3. Owing to the changed circumstances, because of the fact that the

arguments in the Company Petition have already been concluded and the

judgment has been reserved, as a matter of fact, no concrete decision is desirable in this Company Appeal, on the merits of the matter in relation to

issue of amendment, because in either of the circumstances, the amended

pleadings cannot be permitted to be incorporated and be considered on

merits in a matter in which the judgment has already been reserved.

4. In that eventuality, while taking this fact on record, this Company

Appeal is closed, leaving it open for the Appellant that, in either of the

circumstances, when the final judgment is rendered, it will be open for the

parties, and particularly for the Appellant, it would be open for the Appellant

to raise the question at an appellate stage, if at all so required, in the light of

the provisions contained under Section 105 of the CPC.

5. Company Appeal would stand closed accordingly.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) rashmi/rr

2 of 2

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