Rajendra Prasad Jain vs Registrar Of Companies Mumbai

IN THE MATTER OF: Rajendra Prasad Jain ...Appellant

Versus

Registrar of Companies, Mumbai. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Adv. Aditi Sharma For Respondents : Adv. Durga Dutt, Adv. Pradeep Yadav.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

04.02.2026 I.A. No. 943/2024 This application is filed under

Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Section 5 of the Limitation

Act for condoning a delay of 28 days in filing the present matter. It is submitted

the impugned order was passed on 01.11.2023 in the absence of the parties

and was uploaded only on 12.12.2023. However, we find from the impugned

order Mr. Amey Hadwale, the Learned Counsel for the Applicant was present.

However, in any case we find the delay as is sought to be condoned is within

the extended period of 45 days per Section 421 (3) of the Companies Act and

hence within the condonable period. Considering the reasons stated in the

application as also it being within the condonable period, we condone the delay

in filing the appeal and thus allow the application I.A No. 943/2024.

Comp. App. (AT) No. 42 of 2024 This appeal is against an impugned order

dated 01.11.2023 passed by Ld. NCLT, Mumbai whereby an application viz

Restoration Application No. 7/2023 to restore the Company Petition No.

366(MB)/2021 was dismissed, which company petition was dismissed vide

order dated 19.01.2023 on account of non-prosecution. It was observed the application for restoration was filed beyond the period of 30 days as was

provided under Rule 48 of NCLT Rules, 2016 and as such the delay could never

be condoned.

2. In appeal, it is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant the

company petition was filed, primarily, for restoration of the name of the

company in the registrar of companies as maintained by the Registrar of the

companies. The name of the company was struck off because of non-filing of

financial statements/annual returns of more than 2 years.

3. It is submitted Mr. Jeevan Aggarwal, the Director of the company had

preferred an application under Section 252(1) under Companies Act viz CP No.

366 of 2021 seeking restoration of the name of the company and Mrs. Pragya

Khaitan, Advocate was appointed to appear and plead for the Appellant in the

said company petition. Mrs. Pragya, Adv. had attended the court on

12.11.2021, 04.01.2022, 16.02.2022 and 11.04.2022 and was diligently

pursuing the said appeal but however she could not appear on 09.06.2022,

24.08.2022, 21.11.2022 and 19.01.2023 as was in her maternity period. It is

submitted the Appellant also did not attend the Learned NCLT as he was under

a bonafide impression that Mrs. Pragya Khaitan, Adv. was appearing on their

behalf and it was due to this reason the appeal was dismissed on account of

non-prosecution. Later a Restoration Application 7/2023 under Rule 48 of

NCLT Rule was filed but it was also dismissed vide the impugned order as was

beyond the period of 30 days. It was argued even the Director who had filed

the Company Petition also expired from cancer on 27.12.2023 and then the

present Appellant herein who is director viz 49.8% equity shareholder of the

company, had decided to prefer the present appeal.

4. Considering the submissions made in the appeal and also considering

the law laid down in Vamsidhar Maddipatla Vs. Teckbond Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.

& Ors. Comp. App. (AT) No. 364 of 2017 wherein it was held the Learned NCLT

is not powerless to condone the delay beyond 30 days per Rule 15 of the NCLT

Rules, 2016, we allow this appeal and condone the delay in filing the

restoration application because of the reasons given for non-appearance of

Mrs. Pragya, Adv. and thus the company petition is restored to its original

number, subject to imposing a cost of Rs. 40,000/- to be deposited with the

Prime Minister National Relief Fund. Pending Application I.A. No. 943 of 2024

is also disposed of.

[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)

[Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical)

MT/RR