NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI COMPANY APPEAL (AT) NO.215/2025 In the matter of:

Vaibhav Kala Appellant Vs Aparna Choudhrie Kala & Ors. Respondent For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Kaundal, Mr Nitish Kant Sharm, Ms Mehak Khurana, Ms Roshni Ojha, Advocates.

For Respondent: Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr Rohan Chawla, Mr Roshan Rana, Advocate.

ORDER

HYBRID MODE

10.11.2025: This appeal is against an impugned order dated 30.06.2025 passed in CA 286//(PB)/2023 in CP No.68/PB/2020 under Section 241 and 242 by the Ld. NCLT, New Delhi wherein CA/286/PB/2023 in Company Petition No.68/PB of 2020 was dismissed. The said application was filed for recalling of an order dated 04.05.2020. The order is as under:-

“Counsel namely Mr. Ashish Dholakia for the Petitioner and Mr. Prashanto Sen for the Respondent, appeared and the hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.

On hearing the Petitioner, counsel, it appears that he has filed this unnumbered company petition seeking for interim relief to restrain the company from holding EGM scheduled to be held on 06.05.2020 and also for a direction to the Respondents side to provide copies of the documents already sought, over which, the Respondents counsel having conceded not pass a resolution for the removal of the Petitioner from the Board of Directors, list this Company Petition on 13.07.2020 w2ith a direction to the Respondents side to defer the Agenda for removal of the Petitioner from the Board of Directors pending disposal of the case and with a direction to the Respondent side to supply copies to which the Applicant side has sought for inspection. It is further made clear that this order cannot be construed as a restraint order with regarding to functioning of the company.

Both sides are hereby directed to file joint memo of written sub missions as envisage by NCLT within 30 days hereof.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant it was a concession given by the appellant and since now the company petition has not been decided even after five years, the appellant thus filed an appeal for recall of such concession. Admittedly the appellant filed a Company Appeal (AT) No.157 of 2025 and it stood disposed vide order dated 14.07.2025 wherein the Ld. NCLT was requested to expedite the hearing of the main petition and to dispose of all pending applications, preferably within eight weeks. Further the order dated 04.05.2020 was also challenged in CA (AT) No.96/2020 but the said appeal was withdrawn by the appellant vide order dated 24.11.2020.

3. In any case we do not intend to go into merit of this appeal since CA 286/2023 (Supra) was for recall of order dated 04.05.2020, admittedly was moved after five years of passing of such order dated 04.05.2020 wherein the Ld. NCLT had categorically noted the concession shall continue till disposal of proceedings before Ld. NCLT, hence we dispose of this appeal with same request to the Ld. NCLT to dispose of Company Petition pending before it at an early date and without being influenced by any observations made by it on merits in para

15 of the impugned order dated 30.06.2025..

4. With these observations the appeal stands disposed of.

5. Pending applications are also closed.

(Justice Yogesh Khanna) (MR. Ajai Das Mehrotra)

Bm/rr