Ottoman Tubes Private Limited vs Karan Automotives Private Limited

IN THE MATTER OF: Ottoman Tubes Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Karan Automotives Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kushagra Goyal and Mr. Vibhu Anshuman, Advocates.

For Respondent : Mr. Sahil Yadav and Mr. Rishabh Arora, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

22.05.2025 : Heard counsel for the appellant as well as counsel for the

respondent.

2. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 24.05.2025 passed

by the adjudicating authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi,

Court IV) by which I.A. No. 1872/ND/2025 has been rejected.

3. On 10.03.2025, the appellant/applicant was allowed three days time to

file rejoinder affidavit. Appellant's case is that on 12.03.2025, the rejoinder

was filed, certain defects were marked which were cleared on 24.03.2025 and

the rejoinder was again refiled. When the matter was taken on 28.03.2025 it

was not available on the e-filing portal hence the adjudicating authority closed the right. Applicant thereafter filed an I.A. praying for recall of the said order

in which I.A. the impugned order has been passed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has filed

the rejoinder affidavit after serving the copy on the respondent which was filed

on 12.03.2025 i.e., within three days time as was allowed on 10.03.2025.

Some defect was marked, which was cured and it was re-filed on 24.03.2025

but on the date when the matter was heard on 28.03.2025 it was not showing

on e-filing portal.

5. It is submitted that the fact that rejoinder has been filed the appellant

within the time, the said rejoinder ought to have been taken on record

especially when the copy was already served on the respondent and no

prejudice was going to be caused to the respondent.

6. We are of the view that in the facts of the present case when the

rejoinder was filed within the time allowed by the Court even though it was

not showing on the e-filing portal that was not a ground to reject the

application, whereas, in the application filed by the appellant all relevant facts

along with the dates have been stated and in the order impugned adjudicating

authority has not returned any findings that dates of filing rejoinder given in

the application are not correct.

7. In view of the aforesaid we are of the view that rejoinder having been

already filed by the appellant, that may be taken on record and adjudicating

authority may hear after taking the rejoinder on the record. We make it clear

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 787 of 2025 2 of 3 that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. It is for the

adjudicating authority to consider and take a decision.

Appeal disposed of accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 787 of 2025 3 of 3