Mr. Kotikalapudi Ajay Kumar vs Chakkilam Aishwarya

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 30 / 2025 IA Nos. 475 & 476/2025 In the matter of: Mr. Kotikalapudi Ajay Kumar ...Appellant V Chakkilam Aishwarya ...Respondents Present : For Appellants : Mr. Ujjwal Jain, Advocate

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

26.03.2025:

This Company Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant, under

Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, while putting a challenge to the

Impugned Order dated 18.10.2024, as it was passed in IA(CA)/308/2024, which

the Appellant has preferred by invoking the provisions contained under Rule 49

of the NCLT Rules, seeking to recall the order dated 23.09.2024, as it was

passed in Company Petition No. 38/241/2022.

The Company Appeal is accompanied with a Condone Delay Application

being IA No. 475/2025, seeking a condonation of 45 days of delay which has

chanced in preferring the Appeal, having considered the application preferred

by the Appellant, for seeking condonation of delay, since, the order itself was

passed on 18.10.2024 and the application for procuring the certified copy of the

order was made by the Appellant on 19.11.2024 and the copy was delivered by

the Registry of the Tribunal on 20.11.2024, and the Appeal was preferred by e-

Comp App (AT) (CH) No.30/2025 Page 1 of 4 filing the same before the Registry of this Appellate Tribunal on 16.01.2025, the

reason for explanation of delay as it has been given by the Appellant in Para-III

of his Application. Though, the reason may not be much satisfactory, but since

number of days of delay it falls to be well within the upper limit as prescribed

under Section 421 (3), the delay of 45 days, which has chanced in preferring the

Appeal would stand condoned.

Heard the Appellant on the merits of the Appeal, in the Company Appeal

in question, the Appellant challenges the Impugned Order of 18.10.2024,

whereby his application preferred under Rule 49 was rejected. There were two

grounds which have been argued by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant i.e.,

1) That the findings which have been recorded by the Tribunal perverse.

2) That there was a Publication made, is perverse as in fact no such publication

was ever made.

This Appellate Tribunal called upon the Appellant to place before this

Tribunal the grounds set up by him in the Memorandum of Appeal with regards

to the implications of the non-publication, which he has argued before this

Appellate Tribunal during his arguments. He was unable to point out any such

specific ground taken, by the Appellant, in the Memorandum of Appeal rather

to the contrary, if the application preferred by the Appellant under Rule 49

itself, is taken into consideration and particularly the pleading raised by him in

Para-III, it is an admitted fact, at the behest of the Appellant itself, that the

Comp App (AT) (CH) No.30/2025 Page 2 of 4 publication was made by virtue of an order dated 20.02.2023, directing for

carrying out the publication in 2 newspapers, namely "Nava Telangana" and

"Financial Express", as per order passed by the Tribunal and not even that, the

affidavit of service was too filed on record on 29.03.2023 and the matter was

thereafter directed to be proceeded exparte. The aforesaid contention raised in

Para-III stands fortified by the observation made in the Para-IV, of the

application preferred under Rule 49, before the NCLT.

This argument extended by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is

answered against him, because there is no reason for this Appellate Tribunal to

dis-believe, his own statement recorded in the application for recall, that the

publication was made by an order of 20.02.2023 and thereafter the publication

was actually taken on record and matter was directed to be proceeded exparte by

an order dated 29.03.2023. What is interesting is that the order directing the

Company Petition to proceed expartes is not an order, which has been ever

sought to be recalled and that still holds good, in the eyes of law. If that be the

situation, where the order directing the proceedings to be carried exparte is not

being sought to be recalled. The plea of non-publication though contrary to his

own pleadings in the recall application cannot be accepted.

Secondly, he attempted to develop a new case on the ground that the

address which was given was a wrong address, and for the said purposes, he has

drawn the attention of this Appellate Tribunal to the application dated

Comp App (AT) (CH) No.30/2025 Page 3 of 4 20.02.2023, as it finds place on record. The contents of the said application,

would not at all come to the rescue of the Appellant or effect orders on recall

application, for the reason being that, reference of an address is only relevant

for the purposes when a service of notices attempted to be affected is upon by

the Registered Post or under the process of service of notice made under law for

serving of notices. Owing to what has been recorded and the reasons given in

the Impugned Order of service by publication, address becomes irrelevant, this

Appellant Tribunal do not fine any merits in the Appeal. The rejection of

application under Rule 49 has been rightly made by the Tribunal. The Company

Appeal lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Jatindranath Swain] Member (Technical)

RO/MS

Comp App (AT) (CH) No.30/2025 Page 4 of 4