Syeda Shamima Nasrin vs Mayurakshi Enterprises Pvt Ltd & Ors & ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Syeda Shamima Nasrin ...Appellant Versus Mayurakshi Enterprises Private Limited & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. A.K. Shrivastava, Mr. Akash Sharma and Mr. Rishav Ranjan, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Shaunak Mitra, Mr. Dripto Mazumdar and Mr. Debanjane De, Advocates for R-2 to 7.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

04.08.2026 : This Company Appeal is circumscribed under its own

peculiar facts and circumstances.

2. The Appellant, who happens to be Opposite Party No. 2, in Company

Petition No. 279/KB/2024, which relates to the proceedings these were

drawn under Sections 58, 59, 241, 242, and 447 of the Companies Act, read

with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016.

3. The Company Petition thus preferred by Respondent No. 1, by

invoking the aforesaid provisions. The same was decided by the learned

Tribunal by the impugned Order, having the effect of granting interim

protection by directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the

shareholding, constitution of Board, and the assets. The status quo, so far

as it related to the removal of Udyan Sarkar, was also directed to be maintained, as the result of the impugned Order was rendered on

24.07.2025. The Appellant filed an application for procuring the certified

copy on 31.07.2025 and had received the same on 06.08.2025.

4. The instant Company Appeal upon being presented before the

Registry, it was reported by the Registry that there was a delay in filing the

Appeal, as the same was presented before the Registry of this Tribunal only

on 15.10.2025.

5. Subsequently, in another report given by the Registry shows that,

further intimation of defects was intimated to Appellant on 12.11.2025.

However, despite the said intimation given, the defects were not rectified till

04.02.2026. Thus, the Company Appeal suffered from 77 days' of delay in

refiling. Accordingly, an application seeking condonation of 77 days' delay in

refiling the Company Appeal was taken up before this Tribunal on

05.02.2026. This Tribunal observed that, "the delay condonation application

is not on record." However, notices were issued in the Appeal, as well as, on

the delay condonation.

6. Once again, when the matter was taken up on 11.05.2026, even then,

there was no delay application on record. Even as on today, when the matter

is being taken up, the records of the Company Appeal do not show the

pendency of any delay condonation application, according to the report of

the Registry. If the delay is determined in the context of the provisions

contained under Section 421(3), there happens to be 173 days' delay. Owing

to the fact that, the delay of 173 days' in filing the Appeal remains

unexplained, and particularly in the absence of any application having been

2 of 4 preferred for seeking condonation of delay, we are not in a position to pass

any order for granting the benefit of extension of the condonable period.

Even otherwise, the same would be of no avail for the Appellant, as the

number of days' delay i.e., 173 days, goes much beyond the condonable

period contemplated under Section 421(3). There being 173 days' delay, in

preferring the Appeal, the same is not condonable in accordance with the

statute itself.

7. As we have already observed:

a) There is a report of the Registry regarding the delay in filing the

Appeal.

b) There is no delay condonation application filed.

c) The Tribunal's Orders of 05.02.2026 and 11.05.2026, directed the

Appellant to file the delay condonation application.

d) The condonation of delay application has not yet been filed.

8. In that eventuality, the question that, would arise for consideration

would be as to whether at all the delay in refiling could at all be considered,

owing to the provisions contained under Rule 26 of the NCLAT Rules, which

prescribe 07 days' time for rectification of defects. It has been settled by the

Hon'ble Apex Court that, the delay in refiling cannot be extended beyond the

period prescribed under Rule 26, if the period of 07 days as prescribed

under Rule 26 of NCLAT Rules, has already lapsed, particularly in those

cases where the Company Appeal itself has been preferred beyond the

prescribed period of limitation, as provided under sub-section (3) of Section

421.

3 of 4

9. Because there is no delay condonation application, and that the

Appeal has been preferred with a delay of 173 days. Despite the opportunity

being granted by the Tribunal to rectify the defects, the defects were not

rectified. In the light of the aforesaid, the period of 07 days contemplated for

rectifying the defects has already lapsed, and as the Appeal was e-filed only

on 04.02.2026. Consequently, the delay of 77 days in refiling cannot be

condoned.

10. Hence, the Company Appeal would stand dismissed on the ground of

having been preferred beyond the statutory period prescribed under sub-

section (3) of Section 421, and the refiling application, being I.A. No. 995 of

2026, would also stand rejected, since the number of days' delay sought to

be condoned is much beyond the period contemplated under Rule 26 of the

NCLAT Rules.

11. Owing to the aforesaid, the aspect of condonation of delay has been

answered against the Appellant, the Company Appeal does not survive and

the same would accordingly also stand dismissed.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) rashmi/rr

4 of 4