M/S Arjun Fabrication vs Pankaj Narang
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1899 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an application has been dismissed for non-prosecution and the original applicant had died before the date of that dismissal, the legal heirs may seek its restoration by a fresh application, and such an application is to be allowed where the death of the original applicant, which was not in dispute, makes out a case for restoration; the rejection of the restoration application on limitation grounds, without addressing that fact, cannot stand.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Arjun Fabrications, Through Legal Heirs ...Appellant
Versus
Pankaj Narang, RP of J.B.K Developers Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Akhil Shankhwar, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Harish Taneja, Ms. Aayushi Kiran, Adv. for RP.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
17.02.2026: Heard Learned Counsel for the appellant and Learned
Counsel appearing for the RP.
2. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 25.08.2025 passed
by Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi,
Court-IV), by which order the application I.A. No. 4090 of 2025 filed by the
applicants for restoration of I.A. No. 6034/2023 which was dismissed for
want of prosecution has been rejected. Learned Counsel for the appellant
submits that the I.A. 6034/ND/2023 was filed by Arjun successor-in-
interest of the applicant praying for certain reliefs. Unfortunately, Sh. Arjun
Singh died on 24.06.2024 and thereafter the application I.A. No. 4090 of
2025 was filed by the Legal Heirs which application has been dismissed on
the ground of limitation.
-2-
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that in the application all
relevant facts including the death of late Sh. Arjun Singh was mentioned and
court did not advert to the aforesaid facts and rejected the application.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the RP submits that the RP has not
opposed the application for restoration.
5. In the facts of the present case especially when original applicant who
had filed the application I.A. No. 6034/2023 had died and on the day when
application was rejected for non-prosecution original applicant was already
dead, application filed by Legal Heirs i.e. I.A. No. 4090 of 2025 deserves to be
allowed which had made out a case for restoration of the earlier application.
6. In view of the aforesaid, we allow the appeal, set aside the order
passed by Adjudicating Authority dated 25.08.2025 and allow the
application I.A. No. 4090 of 2025 and restore the I.A. 6034/ND/2023.
7. Let the I.A. 6034/ND/2023 be heard on merits and decided with
accordance with law. We make it clear that we are not expressing any
opinion on merits.
8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan) Chairperson
[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) SA/md
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1899 of 2025
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