Back
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J
Uday Kumar Sahu – Appellant
Versus
Birendra Kumar Agarwal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. company appeal dismissed as not maintainable (Para 1 , 24) |
| 2. delay condonation excluding time for certified copy (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. appellants' claim for unit exclusion in im (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. section 425 limits contempt appeals (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. no appeal against dismissal of contempt petition (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
Judgment
(Hybrid Mode)
Per: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)
Impugned in this Company Appeal is the order dated 26.03.2025, that has been rendered by the Learned NCLT, Hyderabad Bench – II in the Contempt Petition No.7/2025, that was preferred in IA No.314/2024 in CP(IB) No.296/7/HDB/2022. The impugned order had ultimately resulted into the rejection of the Contempt Petition.
2. The Company Appeal is accompanied with a Condone Delay Application being IA No.1101/2025, where the Appellants have sought condonation of 15 days of delay that, has chanced in preferring the instant Company Appeal, which has been otherwise determined by the Registry to be 16 days of delay. Certain dates which have been extracted from the Appeal paper book and the impugned order will be relevant for determining the exa
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
