Pramod Sharma vs Dental Implants India Private Limited & ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Pramod Sharma ...Appellant

Versus

Dental Implants India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Jatin Sehgal, Advocate. For Respondents: Mr. Apoorv Shukla, Mr. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Ms. Ilashri Gaur, Advocates for R-1 & 2.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

06.08.2026: The Applicant/ Petitioner, in TP 68 of 2019 (TP No. 100 of

2016) in CP No. 51 of 2015, is before us being aggrieved against the

impugned order of 05.06.2025, by virtue of which the proceedings of the

company petition have been dismissed for want of prosecution, the Learned

Tribunal while recording thereof that, as none has appeared for the

applicant. In fact, the reasons that have been taken by the Ld. Tribunal has

been on the ground of the past conduct of the applicant, in the proceedings

before Ld. Tribunal. Holding thereof that it has not been conducive, as he

has not been diligently participating in the proceedings.

2. Besides that, another reason that, has been taken by the Ld. Tribunal

was on the grounds that one Ms. Yukta Joshi, the Ld. Counsel who was

Company Appeal (AT) No. 195 of 2025 -2-

appearing on behalf of the applicant (Petitioner herein), did not have valid

instructions to appear on behalf of the applicant, hence in the absence of

any authorization or Vakalatnama, Ms. Yukta Joshi couldn't have agitated

the cause of the appellant.

3. As far as the reasons, which have been given by the Ld. Tribunal for

dismissing the company petition for want of prosecution, with due

reverence's at our command, are not acceptable to us for the reasons given

herein. In any judicial proceeding the Ld. Tribunal is not to venture upon

the past conduct of a litigant even if he or she has caused or reflected by

conduct or act, shown lack of diligence, while participating in the

proceedings, those are to be ignored. The matter has to be taken into

consideration as on the date based upon the prevailing conditions and

circumstances when the proceedings are placed before the Ld. Tribunal.

4. The aforesaid principle has been settled by Hon'ble Allahabad High

Court in the matters of 'Qaiser Sibtain Vs. District Judge, Allahabad

and Ors. (1996 SCC OnLineAll 137)', relevant para is extracted

hereunder-

"6. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, High Court never interferes with the concurrent findings of facts unless the same appears to be perverse. The above proposition is well established proposition with which there is no scope for any two opinion. In the present case, the facts have been found by both the courts below against the petitioner, and,

Company Appeal (AT) No. 195 of 2025 -3-

therefore, I refrain from interfering with the fact so found. But the fact remains that while considering the question, the revisional court has dealt with the past conduct of defendant No. 11. It is established principle of law that while considering the question of grant of adjournment or recalling of an order, the past conduct is immaterial. The court has to look into the merit of the case confining to the date of the order sought to be recalled was passed. The court has to look out whether sufficient ground has been made out for the default on the very date or not. Looking into the past conduct would be an extraneous consideration which the court should not go into. In that view of the matter, taking into account the past conduct does not seem to me to be fair and correct approach adopted by the learned court below."

5. Secondly, the Ld. Counsel who appeared on that day on behalf of the

Applicant/ Petitioner, since had made a statement that, she holds an

authorization on behalf of the Applicant/ Petitioner, the Ld. Tribunal either

should have accepted the statement particularly, when it is made by the

counsel or could have atleast granted some time to Ms. Yukta Joshi, the

counsel for the Applicant/ Petitioner, to place her authorization on record.

Non-placement of the authorization couldn't have been the reason to

dismiss the petition for want of prosecution and that too when the proposed

counsel was present, and the appellant was represented by Ms. Yukta

Joshi, who was supposed to file the Vakalatnama.

Company Appeal (AT) No. 195 of 2025 -4-

6. In that eventuality, we don't find any justification to sustain the order

dated 05.06.2025. The same would stand quashed. The matter is remitted

back to the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, Indore Bench, to decide

the company petition on merits as expeditiously as possible, but not later

than three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this

order.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical)

SA/rr

Company Appeal (AT) No. 195 of 2025