Sl Contractors Private Limited & Ors vs The Registrar Of Companies Nct Of Delhi & ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 79 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The quantum of costs imposed under the Tribunal's powers in a strike-off appeal should be fixed by reference to the financial health of the company concerned and the principles applied in the cited judgments; where the lower forum records no reasons for the amount imposed, and the amount is out of step with comparable cases, the Appellate Tribunal may modify it to a figure it considers appropriate on those considerations.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: SL Contractors Private Limited & Ors. ...Appellant (s)
Versus
Registrar of Companies & Anr. ...Respondent (s)
Present: For Appellants : Mr. SP Singh Chawla, Mr. Harpreet Singh Malhotra, Mr. Kartik Sharma, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Rishabh Nangia, Jr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocates for IT Deptt./R-2.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
22.05.2026: This order be read in continuation to the order dated
03.03.2026. In compliance thereof, an affidavit dated 10.04.2026 has been
filed by the appellant and have deposited an amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs with the
Prime Minister Relief Fund and have also placed on record proof of the
amount deposited.
2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has referred to 'M/s Mob Innovation
Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Companies, Haryana' [C.A. No.
44/252/ND/2020] passed by Ld. NCLT, New Delhi on 06.10.2020 wherein
while allowing appeal under Section 252 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013, the
Ld. NCLT had imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited to the Prime
Minister Relief Fund. The cited appeal also relates to a company whose name
was struck of vide the same notice dated 09.08.2019. -2-
3. It is further the case of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, neither in
appeal C.A. No. 44/252/ND/2020 nor in the judgment of present Company
Appeal No. 174/252/ND/2024, the reasons are recorded by the Ld. NCLT as
to why the cost imposed in the earlier matter was only Rs. 25,000/- and
whereas the cost imposed in the present appeal is Rs. 9 Lakhs. We also find
no reasons are given as to the criteria of imposing cost in such cases.
4. Considering the facts narrated before us viz. the financial health of the
company involved and also keeping in view of the judgments cited, it would
be appropriate an amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs as is now deposited by the
appellant, in pursuance of our order dated 03.03.2026 is allowed to be
deposited and thus the cost as imposed by the Ld. NCLT in paragraph 18 (a)
of the impugned order is modified to Rs. 2 Lakhs. Rest of the conditions of
impugned order shall remain the same.
5. The appeal is allowed to this extent only. The pending I.A. Nos. 1673,
1674 & 1675 of 2026 are also disposed of.
[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)
[Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical) SA/rr
Company Appeal (AT) No. 79 of 2026
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