Mr. Arvind Mittal Liquidator For Goel ... vs Nikhil Kumar Goel & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1329 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a Liquidator contends, supported by affidavit, that an application was never withdrawn, and the order recording its withdrawal rests on a recording error rather than an actual withdrawal, the Adjudicating Authority is bound to consider that explanation rather than reject a rectification application on the ground that no clerical error is apparent; a record stating that a pending application was withdrawn, where the applicant's version is that it was not, requires rectification of the order to remove the erroneous withdrawal so that the application is revived and considered afresh on its merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Arvind Mittal, ...Appellant Liquidator for Goel Jewellery and Mart Pvt. Ltd.
Versus
Nikhil Kumar Goel & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Palash S. Singhai, Mr. Harshal Sareen, Ms. Aashima Gautam, Advocates. For Respondents : Ms. Kamakshi S. Rao, Advocate.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
13.04.2026: This appeal has been filed against an order dated
21.07.2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi,
Court-IV by which I.A. No. 3486/ND/2025 filed by the appellant, the
Liquidator of the CD seeking rectification in the order dated 06.06.2025 has
been rejected. The appellant's case is that on 06.06.2025 I.A. No.
5352/ND/2024 and I.A. No. 788/ND/2024 was listed and applicant sought
permission to withdraw I.A. No. 5352/ND/2024 which was recorded,
however, in the I.A. No. 788/ND/2024 Adjudicating Authority has also
directed for withdrawal of the application. Appellant immediately filed an I.A.
No. 3486 of 2025 praying for rectification of the order 06.06.2025. The case
of the applicant in the application was that in paragraph 4 & 5 which are as
follows:
Cont'd../ -2-
"4. That the Applicant during the course of hearing had withdrawn the application bearing I.A. No. 5352/ND/2024 as the said application had become infructuous. However, for I.A. No. 788/ND/2024 the matter was adjourned for 02.07.2025 along with other matters.
5. That the order dated 06.06.2025 was uploaded on the website of NCLT on 09.06.2025, wherein pursuant to an clerical error it was erroneously recorded that I.A. No. 788/ND/2024 has also been withdrawn, which is factually incorrect and contrary to the proceedings that took place before this Hon'ble Tribunal on 06.06.2025."
2. The application has been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority
observing that there is no clerical error in the order. Present is a not a case
of any clerical error which was not being contended by the appellant, rather
Liquidator has come up with the case that he never withdrew the application
i.e. I.A. No. 788/ND/2024 which was an application filed under Section 66 of
IBC. When the Liquidator has come with the case that he has not
withdrawn, Adjudicating Authority ought to have considered the said prayer
in the application and paragraph 4 & 5. Liquidator has given his version
what transpired in the court. Adjudicating Authority without adverting to the
explanation given by the Liquidator in paragraph 4 & 5 has rejected the
application holding that there is no clerical error.
3. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that Adjudicating Authority
has observed in the order twice that the application was withdrawn by the
Liquidator. The Liquidator has come with an application supported by an
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1329 of 2025 -3-
affidavit that the Liquidator has never withdrawn I.A. No. 788/ND/2024 and
the said I.A was required to be heard and consider afresh.
4. In view of the aforesaid, we allow the appeal and set aside the
impugned order in I.A. No. 3486/ND/2025. I.A. No. 3486/ND/2025 is
allowed. Order dated 06.06.2025 is rectified deleting the order of the
Adjudicating Authority permitting withdrawal of I.A. No. 788/ND/2024, in
result I.A. No. 788/ND/2024, is revived for afresh consideration in
accordance with law. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical)
SA/md
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1329 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