Polowings Healthtech Private Limited vs Jayanta Kumar Mittal

IN THE MATTER OF: Polowings Healthtech Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Jayanta Kumar Mittal ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr Shreyas Mehrotra, Mr. Surya Prakash, Mr Manish Kumar Mishra, Advocates.. For Respondents : Adv. Ojaswa Pathak, Advocate.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

03.12.2025: I.A. No. 6645/2025- This application is filed under Rule

31 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 read with

Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking exemption from filing

certified copy of the impugned order dated 01.08.2025. Exemption from filing

certified copy is allowed.

I.A. No. 6646/2025- This application is filed under Rule 31 of the

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 read with section 151

of the Code of Civil Procedure for exemption from filing typed copies of dim,

handwritten, untranslated annexures with appropriate margins. Exemption

is allowed. Be filed within seven days.

I.A. No. 6610/2025- This application is filed under Rule 31 of the National

Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking condonation of delay of 32 days in refiling

the present company appeal. Application is allowed.

Comp. App. (AT) No. 276 of 2025:- This appeal is filed against an

impugned order dated 01.08.2025 passed by Ld. NCLT, Kolkata. It is the

submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant he could not attend the

proceedings on 17.06.2025 due to an incorrect link provided in the cause list

for virtual hearing and due to this the Ld. NCLT reserved the matter after

hearing the Respondent. Subsequently vide order dated 24.06.2025, the Ld.

NCLT granted liberty to the Appellant to prefer an appropriate application for

recall of order dated 17.06.2025 within 7 days. Such an application was

though filed on 01.07.2025 but objections were raised in the Registry.

Further, the account of the appellant was locked for which the defects could

not be cured in time. On 31.07.2025, the counsel for Appellant company

vide e-mail raised her grievance with the Ld. Registrar of NCLT & requested

for opening the account.

2. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant requests for a hearing before

the Ld. NCLT on its application for recall.

3. We have also heard the Learned Counsel for the Respondent. In the

circumstances, more specifically considering the fact the matter was listed

on 17.06.2025 and was reserved for orders upon hearing the Respondent in

the absence of the appellant, we set aside the impugned order and request

the Ld. NCLT to provide one more opportunity to the Appellant to argue its

case and thereafter to decide the issue(s) involved, within two weeks thereof,

subject to payment of cost Rs. 25,000 by the Appellant to the Respondent. It is made clear the Appellant shall not take any adjournment before the

Learned NCLT as he has given an oral undertaking to us to this effect.

Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of.

[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)

[Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical)

mt/rr