$~68

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 26th November, 2025

+ W.P.(C) 1870/2025 & CM APPL. 8934/2025

METALROD PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abhishek Garg, Mr. Yash, Ms. Rhea Bhalla, Ms. Divita Vyas and Mr. Amer Vaid, Advs.

versus

REGISTRAR NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Gurjas Singh Narula, Adv. for R-1

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition has been received by way of marking/transfer.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking directions against respondent no. 2 for their failure to comply with Rule 28 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (“Rules 2016”), which deals with the issue of re-filing of petitions/applications. The said Rule reads as under:

“28. Endorsement and scrutiny of petition or appeal or document.-

(1) The person in charge of the filing counter shall immediately on receipt of petition or appeal or application or document affix the date stamp of Tribunal thereon and also on the additional copies of the index and return the acknowledgement to the party and he shall also affix his initials on the stamp affixed on the first page of the copies and enter the particulars of all such documents in the register after daily filing and assign a diary number which shall be entered below the date stamp and thereafter cause it to be sent for scrutiny.

(2) If, on scrutiny, the appeal or petition or application or document is found to be defective, such document shall, after notice to the party, be returned for compliance and if there is a failure to comply within seven days from the date of return, the same shall be placed before the Registrar who may pass appropriate orders.

(3) The Registrar may for sufficient cause return the said document for rectification or amendment to the party filing the same, and for this purpose may allow to the party concerned such reasonable time as he may consider necessary or extend the time for compliance.

(4) Where the party fails to take any step for the removal of the defect within the time fixed for the same, the Registrar may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, decline to register the pleading or document.”

3. It is the case of the petitioner that as per Rule 28(2), any defect was required to be removed within a period of seven days. However, in the present case, the petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC, 2016”) was filed way back on 21st January, 2022, and has undergone re-filing process nine times, despite the fact that the said defects had to be removed within a statutory period of seven days only.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Trading Company Versus Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Limited and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 143, and relies upon the following paragraph:

“xxx xxx xxx

26 [Ed.: Para 26 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./120/2017 dated 9-3-2018.]. We are also conscious of the fact that sometimes applicants or their counsel may show laxity by not removing the objections within the time given and may take it for granted that they would be given unlimited time for such a purpose. There may also be cases where such applications are frivolous in nature which would be filed for some oblique motives and the applicants may want those applications to remain pending and, therefore, would not remove the defects. In order to take care of such cases, a balanced approach is needed. Thus, while interpreting the provisions to be directory in nature, at the same time, it can be laid down that if the objections are not removed within seven days, the applicant while re-filing the application after removing the objections, file an application in writing showing sufficient cause as to why the appli