Naresh Kumar Garg & Ors vs Super Seeds Private Limited & Ors

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Comp. App. (AT) No. 350 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: Naresh Kumar Garg & Ors. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Super Seeds Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant(s) : Mr. Roopansh Purohit, Ms. Narayani S. and Mr. Aryan Malik, Advocates.

For Respondent(s) : None. ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

25.09.2026 The Appellant is an applicant to the proceedings under

Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, having been initiated before the

Ld. NCLT, Ahmedabad and the same is presently pending consideration.

2. During the course of the proceedings under Sections 241 and 242 of

the Companies Act, the Ld. Tribunal vide its order dated 30.07.2026, had

passed an order having two implications:

(i). A direction was issued for appointment of a mediator in order to

make an effort for settlement of the dispute between the parties, by way of

mediation.

(ii). In pursuance thereof, a direction was also issued to appoint a

mediator from the mediation panel of mediators of Hon'ble Gujarat High

Court and to complete the mediation process within the time period as

prescribed therein.

3. This part is not in dispute and the Appellant has candidly stated that

he is still open to participate in the mediation process, so as to amicably settle the dispute. The grievance of the Appellant is that, being the

subsequent part of the direction, which has appointed a valuer for the

purposes of a valuation of the assets, may not be required to be done at the

stage when the issue is yet to be considered by the mediator who has to take

the proceedings on his own, particularly when the order in itself contains a

rider that the report, which is required to be placed by the valuer in relation

to the assets has been directed to be kept in the sealed cover.

4. Quite obviously, the intention of the Tribunal while passing the order

for appointment of the valuer for assessing the valuation of the assets,

which has been directed to kept in a sealed cover, was that it is not a

document, which was intended to be required to be utilized for the purposes

of determination of mediation, which was to be considered independently,

uninfluenced by the valuation report. The placement of the valuation report

would have been for future which may ultimately be required to be

considered if the mediation results in a failure and the Company Petition is

required to be taken up on the merits.

5. In these circumstances, particularly when the valuation report has

been directed to be kept in a sealed cover, let the valuation process be

completed as directed by the order. The report, as directed to be submitted,

by the valuer would be continued to be kept in a sealed cover till the

mediation process itself is concluded. In future, if at all the valuation report

is required to be considered or utilized on its merits having a bearing of the

main proceedings of the Company Petition. The parties to the Company

2 of 3 Petition would be given an ample of opportunity to raise their objections, if

so desired, to the valuation report. Subject to the above, because at this

stage, the order of the valuation report in a sealed cover is not prejudicial to

the proceedings of either the Company Petition or to the mediation, we

dispose of the present Company Appeal with the following directions:

(i) The valuation may be proceeded with, as directed.

(ii) The report of the mediator would be kept in a sealed cover, till

mediation proceedings are independently divided.

(iii) The valuation report will not be utilized for the purposes of

mediation process.

(iv) The valuer's report, in case if it is required, would only be

considered while taking a decision on the Company Petition, only after the

mediation proceedings are concluded has failed and when the Company

Petition is required to be considered on its merits.

6. Subject to the aforesaid conditions, this Company Appeal stands

closed. The valuation report, if at all required, would be considered after

adherence of principals of natural justice, when the Company Petition itself

is taken up on merits.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Arun Baroka] Abhishek/Ravi Member (Technical)

3 of 3