Mohit Goyal & Ors vs Anil Goyal & Ors

1

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI COMPANY APPEAL (AT) NO.220/2022 In the matter of: Mohit Goyal & Ors Appellant Vs Anil Goyal & Ors Respondent For Appellant: Mr. Raghavendra M Bajaj, Advocate. ORDER

08.12.2022: Heard Mr. Raghavendra M Bajaj, learned counsel for the

appellants who were opposite parties before the NCLT. The appeal under

Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 has been preferred against an order

dated 28.09.2022 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi

(hereinafter referred to as the 'NCLT') in Company Petition No.31(ND)/2016.

The order dated 28.09.2022, which is at Annexure-1 of Memo of Appeal, only

indicates that due to paucity of time, matter is adjourned to 21.10.2022.

Despite the fact that the matter was deferred to 21.10.2022 the present appeal

has been presented before this Tribunal. On 10.11.2022 the appeal was filed

but after removing defects it was refiled on 28.11.2022. In respect of such

orders we are not inclined to interfere.

It was submitted by Mr. Raghavendra M Bajaj, learned counsel that in

the case before the NCLT interim order has been passed in favour of the

applicant and thereafter on number of dates hearing in the matter has been

deferred. Despite filing of number of applications for early hearing, NCLT has

not taken note of them. The appellant herein had also filed a Writ Petition

before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court by its 2

order dated 7.12.2021 dismissed the Writ Petition(Civil) No.13899/2021.

However, while dismissing the writ petition, it was observed that "it is,

however, expected that in case the petitioners make such a request before the

NCLT or NCLAT, the said Tribunal will consider the request and pass

appropriate orders." This order was passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court

on 7.12.2021.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that thereafter email was

sent to the Secretary, NCLT for early hearing on 14.12.2021, however, even

thereafter hearing has not taken place. He further submits that subsequently

petitions were also filed for early hearing. However, there is no such specific

averment in the Memo of Appeal.

We are of the view that an order passed by the NCLT whereby only next

date was fixed may not be considered as an order whereby the appellant can

be termed as aggrieved. An appeal can be filed under Section 421 of the

Companies Act, 2013 if a party is aggrieved with an order. The order

impugned itself reflects that no petition was filed by the applicant or on such

application any order was passed by the NCLT. There is no ground to pass

order in favour of the appellant.

Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed.

(Justice Rakesh Kumar) Member (Judicial)

(Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra) Member (Technical) Bm/gc