Vijay Data vs M/S Data Ingenious Global Ltd & Ors

COMPANY APPEAL (AT) NO.134/2026 In the matter of: Vijay Data ` Appellant Vs Data Ingenious Global Ltd & Ors. Respondent For Appellant: Mr. Narendra M Sharma, Ms Sahana S Narayana, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr Shiv Mangal Sharma, Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocates. ORDER

HYBRID MODE

23.04.2026: This appeal is filed by the appellant against an impugned order

dated 12.03.2026 passed by the Ld. NCLT, Jaipur in CA No.3/JPR/2026 in CP

No.53(ND)2009 whereby the Ld. NCLT had dismissed the appellant's application

seeking recall of the order dated 19.02.2026 passed by the Ld. NCLT, Jaipur. It

is submitted the appellant alongwith others have filed a company petition

aggrieved by the acts of oppression and mismanagement by the Respondents

herein before the Ld. Company Law Board seeking relief on account of alleged

wrongful acts by Respondents No.1 to 8.

2. It is submitted the arguments of the appellant was concluded, but on

19.02.2026 the Ld. NCLT passed the following order: -

"Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has partly advanced the arguments. Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents' state that the respondents are ready and willing to resolve the issue by Medication. Let Mr. Babu Lal Data and 2

Mr. Vijay Data remain present in person on the next date of hearing for exploring the possibility of resolution. To come up for further consideration on 26.02.2026."

3. The appellant filed an application for recall of order dated 19.02.2026

alleging earlier too the efforts were made to resolve the matter amicably in

mediation but the Respondents did not come forward and in one of such cases

between the parties viz. Company Appeal No.1/2015 titled as Saurabh Agrotech

Pvt Ltd & Ors Vs Vijay Solvex Limited and Ors, a cost of Rs.2 lakh was imposed

upon the Respondents because of their unwarranted delay tactics.

4. It is submitted even otherwise, the consent of the appellant was required

to send the matter to mediation per Rupa & Co Ltd and Anr Vs Firhad Hakim

and Others, 2025 INSC 245 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

the mediation cannot be thrusted upon either of the parties and consent of the

parties is required. It is submitted despite noting the judgement stated above,

and also while noting earlier too the efforts were made to settle the disputes

amicably by different courts at different times, the disputes could not be resolved

and thus as this petition is pending since2009, and as the appellants have

concluded their arguments; sending the matter again to mediation would be a

futile exercise and hence be not initiated. It is further argued firstly the appellant

have not given any consent for mediation and secondly as per Afcons

Infrastructure Ltd V Cherian Varkey Construction Co Pvt Ltd (2010) 8 SCC 24

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held if a judge is doing settlement

negotiation and he fails then he should not deal with the adjudication of the

matter to avoid apprehension on bias, it is submitted there is only one Bench at 3

Jaipur and if presiding Judge enters into mediation himself then the case would

have to be transferred to another Bench.

5. In any case at this stage, what we gather from the impugned order is the

impugned order is passed per Section 442(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 which

gives the suo moto power to the Ld. Tribunal to refer the matter for mediation.

6. In its impugned order, the Ld. NCLT noted the parties are related to each

other; the petition is pending since 2009; there are multiple litigations before the

High Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court and further that the appellant No.1

had expired during the pendency of the proceedings, and in these circumstances

the presence of the parties was sought to explore the possibility of settlement

and in no manner prejudices the rights of the parties. The impugned order does

not disclose the Ld. NCLT has actually referred the matter to mediation. It is

simply to call the parties so as to explore the possibility of settlement, if any, due

to reasons aforesaid and it cannot be said to be beyond jurisdiction; thus it

requires no interference. However, in case the Ld.NCLT decides to refer the

matter to mediation, then principles enshrined in the Mediation Act; the law laid

down in Rupa and Company (Supra) and other judgements referred to by the

appellant in his recall application, may be looked into.

7. Considering the fact the Ld. NCLT is trying to settle the disputes amicably,

hence to maintain cordial atmosphere, we waive the cost of Rs.25000/- imposed

upon the appellant herein. To this extent the impugned order stands modified.

8. With these observations the appeal stands disposed of. 4

9. Pending applications being IA No.2631, 2786, 2787 of 2026 are also

disposed of.

(Justice Yogesh Khanna) Member (Judicial)

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