##PAGE1##

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

Comp. App. (AT) No. 297 of 2026

IN THE MATTER OF:

Nitu Mittal …Appellant

Versus Rajesh Bansal & Anr. …Respondents

Present:

For Appellant : Mr. Rachit Mittal, Mr. Yashraj Singh, Mr. Parish Mishra, Mr. Abhishek Sinha & Mr. Arnav Singh Deo,

Adv.

For Respondents : Mr. Dilip Kumar Niranjan & Mr. Karmveer, for R-1.

O R D E R

(Hybrid Mode)

[Per : Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan (Oral)]

03.08.2026 We have been informed that the hard copy of affidavit of

service has been filed by Appellant, the same is taken on record.

2. We also notice that Mr. Dilip Kumar Niranjan is present before us on

behalf of Respondent No. 1.

3. It is informed by Learned Counsel for the Appellant which has not been objected by Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 that Respondent No. 2 is a Performa Party and no relief has been claimed against the same. We place on record the statement given by Counsel for the

Parties.

4. Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Learned Counsel for the

Respondent. Perused the record.

Page 1 of 5

5. The instant appeal has been filed by the Appellant who was Respondent No. 2 before the National Company Law Tribunal New Delhi Bench (Court - II) (‘Adjudicating Authority’) passed in IA 290/ND/2024 in CP-50/241-242/ND/2022, challenging the order dated 05.05.2026, whereby the application moved by the Appellant/ Respondent No. 2 for

recall of order dated 08.10.2024 was dismissed.

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant while drawing our attention towards the order dated 08.10.2024 submits that this order has been passed when the Appellant was not represented before the Learned

Adjudicating Authority.

7. It is further submitted that by order dated 08.10.2024, the proceedings of the above mentioned petition was set as ex-parte against the

Respondent.

8. It is further submitted that to recall this order the IA 290/ND/2024 was moved by the Appellant before the Learned Adjudicating Authority, in which it was specifically contended that the information pertaining to the proceedings of the Learned Adjudicating Authority were not furnished/ informed by Counsel for the Appellant / Respondent No. 2 and it was only before 08.10.2024 while scrolling the web portal of the NCLT, the Appellant/ Respondent No. 2 got knowledge of the fact that her Counsel is not appearing before the Learned Adjudicating Authority and also not informing

abut the status of the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority.

Page 2 of 5

9. It is thereafter the application for recall was filed immediately on 05.12.2024, however, the same has been dismissed by passing the

Impugned Order.

10. It is vehemently submitted that the parties should not be penalised for the non-performance of their Counsels and therefore, a sympathetic view

should have been adopted by the Learned Adjudicating Authority.

11. Per-contra, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submits that at first, the notice by the Learned Adjudicating Authority was issued on 21.03.2023 and 09.06.2023, the Appellant/ Respondent No. 2 appeared before the Learned Tribunal below and four weeks time was granted for the purpose of filing reply and thereafter till date of passing the Impugned Order, no reply has been filed, while in between the case was listed before

the Learned Adjudicating Authority for six times.

12. It is further submitted that the whole purpose of moving the restoration application before the Learned Adjudicating Authority was to keep the proceedings pending and with the same purpose, the instant

appeal has been filed.

13. Having heard Learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the record we notice that the facts of this appeal are more or less admitted to the parties. It appears to be an admitted fact that on 09.06.2023, it was for the very first time four weeks time was granted to the Appellant/ Respondent No. 2 for filing of reply and the same could not be filed and by passing of the Impugned Order dated 08.10.2024, the proceedings were se