Suresh Kumar Kejriwal vs Kejriwal Dyeing And Printing Mills ...

1

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI COMPANY APPEAL (AT)NO.35/2026 In the matter of: Suresh Kumar Kejriwal Appellant Vs Kejriwal Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt Ltd Respondent For Appellant: Mr. Dhiren R Dave, Advocate. For Respondent: ORDER

HYBRID MODE 05.02.2026: This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated 04.12.2025

whereby Company Petition No.61/AHM/2025 filed under Sections 213, 241 and

242 of the Companies Act, 2013 has been dismissed vide the impugned order.

2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant the impugned

order states wrong facts viz a) the appellant was not able to confirm the number

of shares held by him but whereas in para 2 of the Company Petition it is

specifically mentioned the appellant holds 50000 shares and whereas two other

shareholders who support him are namely Ms Vrinda Agarwal holding 20000

shares and Ms Nidhi Kejriwal holding 60000 shares respectively; b) further the

impugned order notes that the application is not specific as to why it is filed

under Section 59 of the Companies Act but whereas a bare perusal of record

would show it was never filed under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 and

was filed only under Sections 213, 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013; c) 2

even on the allegations of oppression and mismanagement it is argued the

company petition contains averments of issuing right issue without offering the

new shares to the appellant and thus to the prejudice of appellant and d) the

impugned order wrongly notes the appellant had not declared his status as a

director, but the prayer clause of the Company Petition duly notes the appellant

is rather seeking his appointment as a director. It is thus argued the Ld. NCLT

even did not issue notice and the petition was rather dismissed on wrong facts.

3. Considering the submissions made by the Ld. counsel for the appellant

and also upon comparing the findings given in the impugned order as well as the

averments made in the company petition, we are of the view the averments made

in the company petition are rather ignored in the impugned order and factual

findings are incorrect. Hence we set aside the impugned order and remand the

Company Petition to the Ld. NCLT with a request to examine the averments made

in the company petition and then pass an order.

4. The appeal is disposed of with the above observations.

(Justice Yogesh Khanna) Member (Judicial)

(Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra) Member (Technical) Bm/arya