Krishen Bans Bahadur & Ors vs The Instalment Supply Limited & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Krishen Bans Bahadur & Ors. ...Appellants

Versus

The Instalment Supply Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellants: Mr. Vivek Malik, Advocate. For Respondents: Mr. Bhuvan Gugnani, Mr. Rupender Sharma, Advocates for R- 1,2 & 3.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

23.12.2025: This appeal is against the impugned orders dated

21.08.2023 as well as dated 25.09.2023 passed by the Ld. National

Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Court-III. It is the submission of the Ld.

Counsel for the appellant he had filed the Company Petition No. 55/ND/2008

before the Ld. Company Law Board and the said petition continued but was

dismissed in default on 22.05.2023. An application for restoration of the said

Company Petition was filed on 30.05.2023, of which notices were issued and

replies were brought on record and ultimately vide the order dated

21.08.2023 such Restoration Application No. 26 of 2023 was dismissed on the

ground the Petitioners No. 1 & 2 had died in 2014 and 2022 respectively and

the remaining Petitioners have not taken any steps to bring on record their

legal heirs.

Cont'd.../ -2-

2. Later the appellant had moved another Restoration Application No. 50

of 2023 which was also dismissed vide the order dated 25.09.2023.

3. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant the

Restoration Application No. 26/2023 ought not to have been dismissed only

on the ground the legal heirs of the Petitioners No. 1 & 2 were not brought

on record, since there were other petitioners viz. Nos. 4,5 & 6 who were on

record. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent however submitted the

Petitioners No. 4 & 5 were though named in the array of parties, but they

never signed any Vakalatnama and they had given their Power of Attorney's

to Petitioner No.1 who had since expired.

4. In any case, these are the questions which can be dealt with by the Ld.

NCLT but we are also of the view that merely on the ground that Petitioners

No. 1 & 2 had expired and applications under Order 22 R4 CPC was not

moved to bring on record their legal heir would not be a ground for denying

the restoration of company appeal, especially when other petitioners were on

record and in case if the court was of the view the proceedings have abated

qua Petitioners No. 1 & 2, it could have continued it at least qua other

petitioners.

5. Thus, in these circumstances, we are of the view the impugned order

dated 21.08.2023 suffers from illegality and consequently even the order

dated 25.09.2023 needs to be set aside. Hence, we allow these appeals by

setting aside both the orders. The company appeal is restored to its original

Company Appeal (AT) No. 236 & 237 of 2023 -3-

number with liberty to the Ld. Counsel for the respondent to raise all issues

of abatement or otherwise before the Ld. NCLT. The rights & contentions of

parties are left open. Let the parties appear before the Ld. NCLT, New Delhi,

Court-III on 07.01.2026.

[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical)

SA/rr

Company Appeal (AT) No. 236 & 237 of 2023