M/S. Mysore Mercantile Company Limited ... vs Kamalapuri Narasimaih Jayalakshmi & ...

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 42/2026 (IA No. 571, 572, 573 / 2026) IN THE MATTER OF: M/s. Mysore Mercantile Company Limited 571, 21st Main Road, 4th Block, Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560041 .... Appellant No. 1 Varadahalli Thimmappa Sridhara lst Block, Sir M/V Layout, Vishwavidhayalaya, Bangalore - 560056 ....Appellant No. 2 Vs Kamalapuri Naraisimaih Jayalakshmi 1680, 6th Cross, 10th Main Road, 2nd Block, BSK 1st Street Bengaluru South, Bengaluru - 560050 ....Respondent No. 1 Krishnan Karthick Darshan 1680, 6th Cross, 10th Main Road, 2nd Block, BSK 1st Street, Bengaluru South, Bengaluru - 560050 ....Respondent No. 2 Vistara Media Private Limited No.1, 2nd Floor, 4th Floor, India Express Building, Queens Road, Bengaluru - 560001 ....Respondent No. 3 Harti Venkataravanppa Dharmesh No.13m 3rd Floro, 4th Main, 4th Cross, Sankranthi Layout, JP Nagar, 7th Phase, Bengaluru South, Karnataka - 560076 ....Respondent No. 4 Srinivasa Seetaram Hebbar 71/1, Subhadra Vidya Nagar, 5th Cross Maratikoppa Sirsi, Karnataka - 581402 ....Respondent No. 5 Hariprakash Konemane F. No. 008, Pyramid Platina Apartment, D K Sandra, Karnataka - 560062 ....Respondent No. 6 Divya Niteen Malu No.1, 2nd and 4th Floor, Indian Express Building,

Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 42 / 2026 Page 1 of 7 Queens Road, Bangalore - 560071 ....Respondent No. 7

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate For Ms. Alpa Jain, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Chethan Kumar, Advocate For R1, R2

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

06.04.2026:

Oral Judgment: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial):

The Appellant in the instant Company Appeal, preferred under Section 421

of the Companies Act, 2013, puts a challenge to the impugned order dated

06.02.2026 as passed by the Ld. NCLT, Bengaluru Bench in CA/103/BB/2025 as

preferred in CP/74/BB/2025. The consequential effect of the impugned order had

been that, in the proceedings under Section 58 of the Companies Act, 2013, the

application for condonation of delay as preferred in CA/103/BB/2025 has been

allowed, resulting into a condonation of 36 days of delay that has chanced in

preferring the petition, CP No. 74/BB/2025.

2. If we meticulously scrutinise the provisions contained under sub-

section 3 of Section 58 of the Companies Act, 2013, it doesn't create a bar or an

absolute restriction that a proceedings, which is preferred beyond the lapse of

time period as it has been prescribed therein under Section 58(3) of the

Companies Act, 2013, would not be condonable by the Ld. Tribunal, by

Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 42 / 2026 Page 2 of 7 exercising its powers under Section 433 of the Companies Act, 2013, which

attracts the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, to be applied for the purposes

of Condonation of delay.

3. In the case at hand, the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has argued that

the impugned order, condoning 36 days of delay that has chanced in preferring of

the Company Petition, is bad in the eyes of law for the reason being, that the entire

objections, put forth by the Appellant in the said proceedings of CA/103/BB/2025

has not been taken into consideration by the Ld. Tribunal at the time of passing

of the order of condoning the delay of 36 days. Besides that, he argues that, the

ailment of the deponent to the Company Petition, which has been given as the

reason for the delay has not been substantiated by filing relevant medical

documents in support of the said claim and hence the application deserves to be

rejected.

4. He further argues that, the petitioner has attempted to substantiate

his plea made in Para - 3 of the delay condonation application that the deponent

was suffering from ailment, by filing a memorandum on 06.01.2026 along with

the supporting medical documents, which should not be taken into account

because he was not granted an opportunity to controvert the same and to file a

rejoinder to the said memorandum, which was filed in support there to for the

purposes of justifying the condonation.

Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 42 / 2026 Page 3 of 7

5. There will be two-fold answer to the argument extended by the Ld.

Counsel for the Appellant. So far as the aspect pertaining to the supply of

documents by the petitioner on 06.01.2026 is concerned, though the Appellant in

his memorandum of Appeal, under the head of "Violation of Principles of Natural

Justice (Audi Alteram Partem)", has taken a plea that, no opportunity was

provided to him to rebut the pleadings and documents filed by the Respondent /

Petitioner before NCLT, in the entire pleading taken by him before NCLT or in

his Appeal memorandum, while making the plea of non-providing of an

opportunity of rebuttal to the contents of document filed along with the memo,

he does not make even a whisper, that the documents filed in support of the

ailment with the memo are doubtful, which couldn't have been accepted to be

read for the purposes of condonation of delay of 36 days in the light of the

provisions contained under Section 433 of the Companies Act, 2013.

6. The second limb of argument of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant

is that when the memo was taken on record on 06.01.2026, he was supposed to

be granted an opportunity to file a rejoinder. Under the law of pleadings and

more particularly, in relation to the miscellaneous proceedings which relates to

orders which are interlocutory in nature, rejoinder may not be constituted as to be

an intrinsic part of pleadings and more particularly when it is read in context when

the rejoinder was expected by the Appellant to be preferred for the purposes to

deny the contents of the documents. If that be the logic, then at least, when there

Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 42 / 2026 Page 4 of 7 was no opportunity provided to the Appellant to file a rejoinder, he ought to have

doubted the veracity of the documents filed in support of the ailment, which were

appended with the memo filed by the Petitioner / Respondent on 06.01.2026.

7. The aspect of limitation, so far, relates to the implications, being

drawn from the provisions contained under Section 433 of the Companies Act,

2013, the ailment in itself, as pleaded in the application, stands substantiated by

the documents filed in support there to. It cannot be ruled out that, the deponent

to the Affidavit which was filed in support of the Company Petition was not ailing

on that particular time period, and even that is not the case of the Appellant also.

The medical certificates itself are the proof of ailment, particularly when any of

them are not denied or even denied at this Appellate stage. Thus, the reason

which has assigned by the Ld. Tribunal, for the condonation of delay, which was

on account of the ailment of the petitioner, doesn't seem to be unreasonable.

8. In extension to his argument, the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has

argued that, as a matter of fact, when he filed his objection, he had specifically

pleaded about there being actually a delay of 200 days and had also raised the

question of maintainability. We make it very clear that at the stage when the Ld.

Tribunal was considering the aspect of condonation of delay, that would be

exclusively confined to be read only for the purposes of an aspect of condoning

the delay based upon pleading and the memorandum filed before the Ld.

Tribunal, and the condonation of delay in itself will not have any adverse effect

Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 42 / 2026 Page 5 of 7 so far as the question of maintainability of Company Petition is concerned, it is

hoped and trusted that would be altogether an independent question to be argued

by the Appellant, when the Company Petition itself is considered on its merits.

9. Because of the fact that there is a satisfaction recorded by the Ld.

Tribunal in relation to the medical documents filed in support there to with delay

condonation application, we feel that the reasons for delay is not to be

meticulously explained by the Applicant, as contrary to the expectations of the

Appellant that each day delay was required to be explained, and that it would be

preposterous thought that at the stage of considering the application for

condonation of delay, a meticulous explanation of each days delay was required,

particularly when condonation is considered in context of number of days sought

to be condoned, which is not inordinate, and under law it could be condoned.

10. Condonation of delay also entails an exercise of discretionary

powers under the given set of facts before the Ld. Tribunal where a pragmatic

view has to be adopted by the Ld. Tribunal in order to ensure that, the lis between

the parties is decided on its merits rather than on technicalities of limitation, it is

seen that a rational attitude has been adopted by the Ld. Tribunal, to serve the

interest of justice, by condoning the 36 days of delay in preferring of the

proceedings under Section 58 of the Companies Act, 2013, and therefore this

doesn't call for any interference by this Appellate Tribunal in the exercise of our

Appellate jurisdiction under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 42 / 2026 Page 6 of 7

11. Thus, the Comp App (AT) (CH) No. 42 / 2026 is dismissed. However,

the exception as carved out in the body of this judgment of reserving the rights of

the Appellant to raise the question of maintainability of the proceedings, that

would still be an issue open to be argued before the Ld. Tribunal when the

proceedings are taken up on merits.

Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 42 / 2026 is dismissed, and all

Interlocutory Applications are closed.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Jatindranath Swain] Member (Technical)

DD/MS/AK

Comp. App (AT) (CH) No. 42 / 2026 Page 7 of 7