Sivaraman vs Punarjani Securities Limited & Ors

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 32/2026 (IA No. 391/2026) In the matter of: SHRI. MR. SIVARAMAN Swastika Ithikkat House, Near Chungam, Kanjani Road, Ayyathole PO, Thrissur - 680 003. ... APPELLANT

V

PUNARJANI SECURITIES LTD Jayasree Castle, Room No. 27/7c, Karunakaran Nambiar Road, Thrissur - 680020. ... RESPONDENT NO. 1

DR. AC VELAYUDHAN S/o Chozhikutty Alungai Alungal House, Poomkunnam PO Pallath Lane, Trissur:680002 ... RESPONDENT NO. 2

MR A. C PREMANANDHAN S/o Chozhikutty Alungai VIII/93, Alungal House Manathala Chavakad-680506 ... RESPONDENT NO. 3

VADAKKOOT GOPALAN SURESH Arya S N Nagar, Poothole PO Trissur:680004 ... RESPONDENT NO. 4

OZHUKIL PADINAREPET ACHUTHAN KUTTY Santhi, Mammiyoor PO Guruvayoor-680103 ... RESPONDENT NO. 5

ITTILAVALAPPIL NARAYANAN RAJESH Ittilavalappil House Choorakattukara, Amalanagar PO Trissur: 680555 ... RESPONDENT NO. 6

Comp App (AT) (CH) No. 32/2026 Page 1 of 6 ARUKETTY SANKARANARAYANAN DHARMAN Dr. AC Velayudhan S/o Chozhikutty Alungai Alungal house, Poomkunnam PO Pallath Lane, Trissur:680002 ... RESPONDENT NO. 7

MELEPPURA UNNIKRISHNAN Meleppura House, Green Park Thiruvambady Thrissur: 680022 ... RESPONDENT NO. 8

SUGADHAN KUMARAN KOLLEM PARAMBIL Kollemparambil, Sebastian Nagar, Kottanellur Mukundapuram Thrissur: 680662 ... RESPONDENT NO. 9

PRATHYUSH PRADEEP Chembilhousenear Block Office Mullassery Chavakkad-680508 ... RESPONDENT NO. 10

CHEMPIL CHANDRAN PRADEEP Chembil House PO Mullassery Thrissur: 680509 ... RESPONDENT NO. 11

ASWINI HOSPITAL LTD Karunakaran Nambiar Road Trichur: 680001 ... RESPONDENT NO. 12

ASWINI HEALTHCARE LTD No 28/212/2 Aswini Hospital Bldgs Karunakaran Nambiar Road Trichur- 680020 ... RESPONDENT NO. 13

Present : For Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Prakash & Mr. Jerin Asher Sojan, Advocates For Respondent : Mr. Mohammed Umar K, Advocate For Mr. B. Dhanraj, Advocate for R1

Comp App (AT) (CH) No. 32/2026 Page 2 of 6 ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

10.03.2026:

Oral Judgment: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)

Looking into the nature of the controversy, as engaged consideration, in

the instant Company Appeal, which exclusively confines to the issue of

imposition of cost on account of the dereliction on part of the Counsel for not

diligently conducting the proceedings before the Learned Adjudicating

Authority, we proceed to decide the Company Appeal while accepting the oral

arguments extended by the Respondent's Counsel.

2. In a nutshell, the consequential effect of the impugned order dated

17.02.2026, as it has been rendered in a proceeding under Section 241 and Section

242 of the Companies Act, 2013, by the Learned NCLT, Kochi Bench, was that

the Petitioner/Appellant has been saddled with a cost of Rs. 2 lakhs, exclusively

on account of certain unintentional dereliction on part of the Counsel, in taking

up the proceedings, in the manner in which it was expected by the Learned

Tribunal, to have been conducted by the representative of the

Petitioner/Appellant, before the Learned NCLT.

3. The reason which has been assigned by the Learned Tribunal, and rightly

so, that after the conclusion of arguments of the proceedings of the Company

Petition, an application for placing additional documents was sought to be placed

Comp App (AT) (CH) No. 32/2026 Page 3 of 6 on record by the Petitioner/Appellant. It was permitted but thereafter, even when

the proceedings were taken up. The said application, which was sought for

placing additional documents on record was not pressed by the Learned Counsel

for the Appellant nor it was brought to the knowledge of the Learned Tribunal,

and the Petitioner/Appellant through his Counsel, consciously proceeded to

participate in the proceedings and consequence of which the Learned Tribunal

got annoyed, and observed that despite sufficient time has lapsed and the

proceedings were not being taken up by the Petitioner/Appellant, in the manner

it was expected by the Learned Tribunal, by pressing upon the earlier pending

applications and then only ought to have proceeded to argue the Company

Petition itself on its merit. It is because of the professional imperfection on part

of the Counsel, the Learned Tribunal has imposed a cost of Rs. 2 lakhs on the

Petitioner/Appellant.

4. If we scrutinise the impugned order, nothing can be attributed for lack of

diligence, as against the Petitioner/Appellant, for not having diligently

participated in the proceedings. It is a settled principle of law that, a litigant

should not be made to suffer because of there being some slackness or dereliction

on part of the Counsel representing his cause before the Court. If the Appellant's

Counsel has not been able to chronologically argue on the documents, which was

already placed on record or after consumption of sufficient time, that in itself

cannot be a reason to impose a cost and that too, particularly when it has to befall

Comp App (AT) (CH) No. 32/2026 Page 4 of 6 upon the Appellant, without assigning any reason as to how the determination of

cost of Rs. 2 lakhs, have been made by the Learned Tribunal.

5. Exclusively, on a humanitarian ground and that the litigant should not be

made to suffer on account of the Appellant Counsel's mistake, the impugned

order would stand quashed, so far it relates to the imposition of cost on the

Appellant.

6. During the course of hearing of the Company Appeal, the Learned Counsel

for the Appellant submits that, as a consequence of the order passed by the

Learned Tribunal on 17.02.2026, the matter was directed to be taken up on

25.02.2026 and the same is shown to be listed on the said date, it shows that there

are about six or seven Interlocutory Applications pending consideration. The

Learned Counsel for the Appellant who represents the cause of the

Petitioner/Appellant submits that, if those applications are taken on merits and

decided by the Learned Tribunal, he may not be having any grievances as such.

Considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and exclusively because of the

implication of the imposition of cost, the impugned order dated 17.02.2026 would

stand quashed to the extent of imposition of cost, as made by the impugned order.

But owing to the undertaking given by the Appellant, that he would be diligently

participating in the proceedings, the Company Petition is requested to be

considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible but not later than 6 weeks

Comp App (AT) (CH) No. 32/2026 Page 5 of 6 from the date of production of the certified copy of this order, for which the

Appellant would diligently assist the Learned Tribunal.

7. All pending Interlocutory Applications would stand 'closed'.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Jatindranath Swain] Member (Technical)

AR/MS/AK

Comp App (AT) (CH) No. 32/2026 Page 6 of 6