S. K. Beri vs Deepak Beri & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 152 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The NCLAT set aside the Tribunal's order rejecting a belated reply in CA (AT) 152/2018 and directed its acceptance, but the reasoning is not stated as a legal principle beyond the appellant's ill health, age, and the respondents' lack of objection, which are factual circumstances rather than a rule of law. In CA (AT) 153/2018 the appeal was disposed of as infructuous because the order it challenged had been set aside.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
S. K. Beri ...Appellant
Vs
Deepak Beri & Ors. ....Respondents
With
Company Appeal (AT) No. 153 of 2018
IN THE MATTER OF:
S. K. Beri ...Appellant
Vs
Deepak Beri & Ors. ....Respondents
Present:
For Appellant: Ms. Priya Kumar and Mr. Adhish Srivastava, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. K. Datta, Mr. Shantanu Parashar and Mr. Aditya Gupta, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Shreyas Mehrotra, Advocate for R-2, 3 & 4.
ORDER
25.05.2018: Company Appeal (AT) No. 152 of 2018 - The appellant has preferred this appeal against order dated 21st March, 2018 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Court No. III, New Delhi (in short 'Tribunal') in C. P No. 219/ND/2017 whereby and wherein the Appellant's prayer to accept reply which he has filed belatedly, has been rejected.
Company Appeal (AT) No. 152 & 153 of 2018 -2-
2. The Appellant submitted that the Appellant's right to file the reply was closed by the Tribunal, though the pleading have been completed by the other respondents. It is further submitted that due to ill health of the Appellant he could not prefer the application within time. The Appellant is 84 years old and suffering from heart ailment with a history of chronic renal ailment.
3. On notice respondents have appeared. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that they have no objection if the reply is accepted.
4. Taking into consideration the stand taken by the Appellant and the fact that he is aged about 84 years and suffering from heart ailment and that the Respondents have no objection if the reply is accepted, we set aside the impugned order dated 21st March, 2018. The Tribunal is directed to accept the reply and keep it on record.
5. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 29th May, 2018 to fix the date for hearing. We also direct the parties not to ask for unnecessary adjournment. The Tribunal may proceed with the matter and conclude the same on hearing, if possible, on an early date. The Appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid observations.
Company Appeal (AT) No. 153 of 2018 - This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against order dated 19th April, 2018 passed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid case in C.P. No. 219/ND/2017 whereby and whereunder the Tribunal refused to recall the order dated 21st March, 2018.
Company Appeal (AT) No. 152 & 153 of 2018 -3-
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that order dated 21st March, 2018 has been set aside, we hold that this appeal has become infructuous. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Member (Judicial)
am/gc
Company Appeal (AT) No. 152 & 153 of 2018
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free