Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Vanraj Suppliers Pvt.Ltd. & Anr vs Regional Director Mca North East Region

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal9 September 2025

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded because the Tribunal was required to consider the appellants' response to the Regional Director's representation and their subsequent compliances, and its failure to deal with that response left the order unsustainable; the Tribunal is directed to pass a fresh order in light of those materials, with all parties' rights and contentions left open.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) No. 142 of 2023IN THE MATTER OF:

Vanraj Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Regional Director ...Respondent(s) Ministry of Corporate Affairs North-Eastern Region Present: For Appellant : Ms. Neha Somani, Pr. CS. For Respondents : Mr. Durga Dutt, Ms. Ravleen Kaur Kalsi, Mr. Pradeep Yadav, Advocates.

WITH Company Appeal (AT) No. 143 of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

Assam Timber Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Regional Director ...Respondent(s) Ministry of Corporate Affairs North-Eastern Region Present: For Appellant : Ms. Neha Somani, Pr. CS. For Respondents : Mr. Durga Dutt, Ms. Ravleen Kaur Kalsi, Mr. Pradeep Yadav, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) 09.09.2025: These two appeals are filed against an impugned order

dated 13.04.2023 passed in C.P.(CAA) No. 04/GB/2021 in C.A. (CAA) No.

01/GB/2021 and in CP (CAA) No. 03/GB/2021 in C.A. (CAA) No.

04/GB/2021 whereby second motion application(s) filed by the appellants

herein were dismissed and scheme(s) were not sanctioned.

2. It is the submission of appellant that in the second motion, certain

objections were raised by the Regional Director, NER in its representation

dated 11.01.2023 as noted in the impugned order itself. -2-

3. It is further the submission of the appellant though the appellant(s)

provided explanation to the issues raised by the Regional Director in its

representation, vide an affidavit dated 31.01.2023, filed before the Ld. NCLT,

but the Ld. NCLT did not dealt with such response given by the appellant(s)

to such representation dated 11.01.2023 of the Regional Director, NER.

Further it is alleged compliances were made by the appellant herein in lieu of

representation dated 11.01.2023 (supra).

4. In view of submissions so made above, it would be appropriate if the

matter is remanded to the Ld. NCLT to relook and consider the response(s)

given by the appellant(s) herein to the representation dated 11.01.2023 of the

Regional Director, NER and also to the subsequent compliances made by the

appellant(s), and thereafter to pass an order. Thus, we set aside the impugned

order(s) dated 13.04.2023 in both these appeals and request the Ld. NCLT to

pass an order(s) afresh in light of the above. The rights and contentions of

parties shall remain open to them.

5. Both the appeals stand disposed of in terms of the above. Pending

application(s), if any, in both the appeals are also closed.

[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical)

R.N./Manu

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