Suresh Kumar Kejriwal vs Kejriwal Industries Private Limited & ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Suresh Kumar Kejriwal ...Appellant

Versus

Kejriwal Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Appearance not marked. For Respondents : Mr. Krishnendu Datta (Sr. Adv.), Adv. Natasha Dhruman Shah, Adv. Alina Merin Mathew, Advocates.

With Comp. App. (AT) No. 38 of 2026

IN THE MATTER OF: Suresh Kumar Kejriwal ...Appellant

Versus

Kejriwal Geotech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Appearance not marked. For Respondents : Mr. Krishendu Datta (Sr. Adv.), Adv. Natasha Dhruman Shah, Adv. Alina Merin Mathew, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

23.03.2026 Comp. App. (AT) No. 37 of 2026- This appeal is filed

against an impugned order dated 04.12.2025 passed by Ld. NCLT Ahmedabad

whereby Company Petition filed under Section 59, 213, 241 and 242 of the Companies Act was dismissed. The prayers made in Company Petition were (a)

the Register of members of the Respondent No. 1 company be amended by

reinstating the name of Mr. Sparsh Kejriwal as a Shareholder of the company

be cancelling of all transfers of shares and (b) the Petitioner group be given a

place in the Board of Directors of Respondent No. 1 company to protect the

rights of the shareholders and (c) investigation into the affairs of Respondent

No. 1 company be ordered.

2. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant vide the

impugned order, the Company Petition was dismissed on the ground the

Appellant was not able to confirm the number of shares held by the Petitioners

or if they were directors in the Company before filing of the Petition.

3. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant the list of

shareholders was very well mentioned in Para No. 6.3 of the Company Petition

and further in Para 6.7 it was stated as per the list of shareholders dated

31.03.2022 the name of all the Petitioners was there, but during the Financial

Year 2021-22 and on 05.05.2022 the 28,900 shares held in the name of Mr.

Sparsh Kejriwal were illegally transferred to one Ms. Pramod Devi Kejriwal and

the Company has given affect to the transfer of the share in violation of the

provisions of law and further the said shares have been transferred without

complying with the mandatory provisions of the Companies Act.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also shown us list of

shareholders as on 31.03.2022 wherein the name of Mr. Sparsh Kejriwal was

very much in the list of shareholders but in the list as on 31.03.2024 the name

of Mr. Sparsh Kejriwal does not find a mention. Probably, these documents were not filed along with the Company Petition and for this reason, the

impugned order was passed. The Respondents have also appeared through the

Learned Senior Counsel and submits at the time of filing the Petition i.e. on

29.09.2025 all the shareholders except M/s Jai Kashi Trading and Finance

Company Pvt. Ltd., have transferred their shares with consideration but

admittedly even the list of shareholders as on 31.03.2024 has not been filed.

Further, objections as taken by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant

are of limitation and suppression.

5. In any case, the impugned order is premised on the fact the number of

shares held by the Petitioners were not mentioned in the Company Petition

which infact is factually incorrect as are disclosed in Para No. 6.3 of the

Company Petition. Further, as to if the Appellant was director or not, is also

clarified by the prayer as they seek appointment as a Director of the

Respondent No. 1 Company. In any case, we find the impugned order is

factually incorrect since both these facts are mentioned in the Company

Petition. Though, the objections have also been raised qua limitation etc but

such contentions can be looked into by the Ld. NCLT at the time of issuance

of notice. Hence, we find the dismissal of Company Petition at its threshold for

reasons given was not proper and hence we set aside the impugned order. In

case any further information is required by the Learned NCLT, they may direct

the Appellants herein to file affidavits for better particulars. Company Petition

is disposed of. Pending applications are also disposed of. Comp. App. (AT) No. 38 of 2026- An affidavit has been filed by the

Respondent. Let the hard copy be placed on record. A copy of the same be also

supplied to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant. List it on 09.04.2026 along

with Comp. App. (AT) No. 36 of 2026.

[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)

[Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical)

MT/RR