Shrikant Gopilal Rathi & Ors vs Mr. Mukund Ghanshyamdasji Maheshwari ...

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal26 February 2026

CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 59

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Appellate Tribunal holds that, where the appellant has failed to cure the defects pointed out by the Registry despite two opportunities granted by the Tribunal, the appeal stands rejected under Rule 26(3) and (4) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016. It further holds that, the appeal being defective and liable to rejection on that ground, no appeal lies against the dismissal of the contempt petition, and the merits of that dismissal need not be examined.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALAT CHENNAI(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 59 / 2025(IA No. 636/2025)(With Defects)IN THE MATTER OF:SHRIKANT GOPILAL RATHIR/o 9, BAHUBALI NAGAR, GOPURI,NALWADI, NAGPUR ROAD,WARDHA - 442001 .... 1ST APPELLANTPREETIW/o SHRIKANT RATHIR/o 9, BAHUBALI NAGAR, GOPURI,NALWADI, NAGPUR ROAD,WARDHA - 442001 .... 2ND APPELLANTAVIRAJ RATHIS/o SHRIKANT RATHIR/o 9, BAHUBALI NAGAR, GOPURI,NALWADI, NAGPUR ROAD,WARDHA - 442001 .... 3RD APPELLANTVMUKUND GHANSHYAMDASJIMAHESHWARI (DAGA),AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,401 , JANPRIYA, PRAMILA ENCLAVE,UMANGAR, BEGUMPETH,HYDERABAD - 500016 .... 1ST RESPONDENTNEETA MUKUNDMAHESHWARI (DAGA),AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,401, JANPRIYA, PRAMILA ENCLAVE,UMANGAR, BEGUMPETH,HYDERABAD - 500016 .... 2ND RESPONDENTSHOBHAW/O GHANSHYAMDASMAHESHWARI (DAGA),AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,401, JANPRIYA, PRAMILA ENCLAVE,UMANGAR, BEGUMPETH,HYDERABAD - 500016 .... 3RD RESPONDENT

Comp App (AT) (CH) No. 59 of 2025 Page 1 of 3 SHYAMA MAHESHWARI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 4162, PRESTIGE PARK VIEW, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE - 560066 BOTH RESPONDENT NOS. 4 & 5 ALSO CLAIMED TO BE THE RESIDENTS OF B 101, RAMKY TOWERS, GACHI BOWLI, HYDERABAD - 500 032 TELANGANA .... 4TH RESPONDENT

NAGARJUNA AGRO CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT D.NO.6- 3-1219/24, FLAT NO.301, 3RD FLOOR UJWAL BHAVISHYA COMPLEX, UMA NAGAR, BEGUMPET, HYDERABAD -500016 REPRESENTED BY SMT SUNDARI R PISUPATI, LD. ADMINISTRATOR, HAVING OFFICE AT 8TH FLOOR, WESTERN PEARL, HITECH CITY ROAD, HYDERABAD - 500084 .... 5TH RESPONDENT

Present : For Appellants : Mr. Jerin Asher Sojan, Advocate For Mr. CV. Shailandhran, Advocate

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 26.02.2026:

As against the impugned order of rejection of the Contempt Petition, the instant Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 59 / 2025, has been preferred by the Appellant way back on 25.05.2024 which was reported by the Registry to be defective.

Twice, we had granted time to the Appellant to rectify the defects pointed out by the Registry, which had not been rectified by the Appellant even till date.

Comp App (AT) (CH) No. 59 of 2025 Page 2 of 3 Owing to the aforesaid fact, though on merits too, against the dismissal of Contempt, no Appeal would lie. The Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 59 / 2025 otherwise would stand rejected under Rule 26 (3) & (4) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Jatindranath Swain] Member (Technical) SR/MS/AK

Comp App (AT) (CH) No. 59 of 2025 Page 3 of 3

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