Ms Capital Transformers Pvt Ltd And ... vs Praveen Kumar Goyal
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 124 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a party has filed its reply within time but the document fails to reflect on the Tribunal's portal due to procedural lapses, and no defect notice or intimation has been issued by the Registry under the scrutiny procedure, the party's bona fide belief that its reply was duly accepted and placed on record constitutes sufficient cause to recall an order closing the opportunity to file the reply, and the reply is to be taken on record. An order closing the opportunity to file pleadings that rests on an earlier direction is vitiated where that earlier direction was in fact passed in a different application and not in the main petition, so the premise of the closure order does not stand.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Capital Transformers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Praveen Kumar Goyal ...Respondent(s)
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Arun Saxena, Mr. Shanu Pastore, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Praveen Kumar Goel, Mr. Nimit Dhola, Mr. Akhilesh, Mr. Martyunjay Singh, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
16.04.2026: I.A. No. 2500 of 2026: This is an application for
condonation of delay of 66 days in re-filing the present appeal. Considering
the submissions made in this application, the delay in re-filing is appeal is
condoned. The application is disposed of.
2. This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated 25.11.2025
wherein an application viz CA/275/ND/2025, under Rule 11 of the NCLT
Rules, 2016, seeking recall of order dated 14.10.2025, was dismissed as the
Ld. NCLT noted there was no valid reasons mentioned in the application to
recall the order dated 14.10.2025.
3. The order dated 14.10.2025 read as under:
"CP/56/ND/2022
This Tribunal vide order dated 18.02.2025 had directed the respondent to cure the defects in the reply and upload the same on e-portal of the Tribunal. As per the order dated 01.07.2025 all the parties were directed to complete the pleadings in the main -2-
matter i.e. CP/56/ND/2022 as well as IAs. However, till today i.e. 14.10.2025 the reply on behalf of the respondent is still not on record. The matter is pending since 2022 and therefore, this Tribunal is not inclined to give further time for completion of pleadings. Therefore, the opportunity to file the reply on behalf of the respondent stands closed. List for arguments on 25.11.2025."
4. If one peruse the application for recall filed by the Appellant herein it
shows the reply as is mentioned in CP/56/ND/2022 was filed by the Appellant
on 01.06.2022 within the prescribed time limit, but due to technical
procedural lapses, reply was not reflecting on the NCLT portal despite having
been filed and acknowledged. The filing receipt and screenshot of the DMS
Portal were also annexed with the application as Annexure-2 (Colly).
5. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant no defect notice
or intimation was ever received from the Registry of the Ld. NCLT regarding
the filing and thus the Appellant was under a bonafide belief the reply was
duly taken on record. The reference was also made to Rule 4 of the NCLT
Rules, 2016 qua the scrutiny of the appeal and to intimate the defects, if any.
The said Rule 4 is as under:
"(2) If, on scrutiny, the appeal or petition or application or document is found to be defective, such document shall, after notice to the party, be returned for compliance and if there is a failure to comply within seven days from the date of return, the same shall be placed before the Registrar who may pass appropriate orders.
(3) The Registrar may for sufficient cause return the said document for rectification or amendment to the party filing the same, and for this purpose may allow to the party concerned such reasonable time as he may consider necessary or extend the time for compliance.
(4) Where the party fails to take any step for the removal of the defect within the time fixed for the same, the Registrar may, for -3-
reasons to be recorded in writing, decline to register the pleading or document."
6. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant no notice or
intimation was ever issued by the Registry to the Respondents nor any defect
was intimated for rectification and thus the Appellant was under a bonafide
believe the reply was duly accepted and was placed on record. It is submitted
the order dated 18.02.2025; relied upon in the order dated 14.10.2025 was
passed in another IA and not in the Company Petition, which was wrongly
inferred as an order passed in the Company Petition.
7. Considering the submissions, we find merit in the application to recall
the order dated 14.10.2025 and as such the impugned order dated
25.11.2025 as also the order dated 14.10.2025 are set aside to the extent that
the reply of the Appellant herein to the said company petition be now taken
on record and the petition be proceeded with. Accordingly, the appeal is
allowed. Pending application(s) viz. I.A. Nos. 2500, 2552, 2553 of 2026 are also
disposed of. The rights and contentions of both the parties shall remain intact.
[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)
[Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical)
Ram N./Ravi R.
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