The importance of upholding principles of natural justice while balancing procedural compliance and making provisions for costs to ensure adherence in future proceedings.

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

INDORE SPECIAL BENCH

COURT NO. 1

ITEM No.202

IA/21(MP)2025

in

CP/46(MP)2022

Order under Rule 11

IN THE MATTER OF:

Meher Tehmurasp Khurody ........Applicant

V/s

Akhil Agrawal & Ors ........Respondents

Order delivered on 16/06/2025

Coram:

Shammi Khan, Hon’ble Member(J)

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, Hon’ble Member(T)

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

The case is fixed for pronouncement of the order.

The order is pronounced in open Court vide separate sheet.

Sd/- Sd/-

SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA SHAMMI KHAN

MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Neeraj

BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL INDORE SPECIAL BENCH, AT INDORE IA/21(MP)2025 In CP/46 (MP) of 2022 In the matter of: [IA/21(MP)2025]

(An application filed under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016)

Meher Tehmurasp Khurody ....Applicant/ Respondents VERSUS Akhil Agarwal and Others ....Respondents/Petitioners In the main matter: (CP/46(MP)2022)

(An application filed under Sections 213, 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013)

Akhil Agrawal and Others ........Petitioners V/s National Board of Trade Pvt Ltd & Ors ....Respondents Order Pronounced: 16.06.2025 C O R A M:

SH. SHAMMI KHAN, HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

SH. SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

A P P E A R A N C E:

For the Applicant/Respondents : Mr. Shantnu Chourasia, Adv For the Petitioners : Mr. Dheeraj Singh Panwar, Adv

O R D E R

1. This interlocutory application, IA/21(MP)2025, is filed on

05.05.2025 by the Applicant/Respondents in CP/46(MP) of 2022 under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 with the following prayers: -

(i) To allow the present application;

(ii) To take on record the reply in 3 volumes filed vide Annexure-2 e-filing No. 23151060052820229;

OR (iii) Any other further or appropriate relief or direction as this Hon’ble Tribunal may consider appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case

2. The Applicant/Respondents seek to have their reply, filed in three volumes vide e-filing no. 2315106005282022/9, taken on record. The Applicant/Respondents also pray for any other relief or direction deemed appropriate by this Tribunal. Annexure A/1, a copy of the order dated 03.03.2025, and Annexure A/2, a copy of the e-filing receipt dated 09.04.2025, are annexed with the application.

3. The main petition, CP/46 (MP) of 2022, was filed by the Petitioners in the main matter under Sections 241-242 and 213 of the Companies Act, 2013, against National Board of Trade Private Limited and its directors, Meher Tehmurasp Khurody, Vinay Khandelwal, and Neel Khandelwal. The Petitioners allege oppression and mismanagement and seek an investigation into the company’s affairs. The Applicant/Respondents had previously filed a reply to IA No. 2 of 2023 and sought time to file a reply to the main petition. This Tribunal, vide order dated 03.03.2025, granted one week for the Applicant/Respondents to file their reply along with a Vakalatnama and a Board Resolution.

Annexure A/1 is a copy of the order dated 03.03.2025.

4.

The Applicant/Respondents submit that they faced delays in filing the reply due to multiple reasons. The authorized signatory of the Respondent company suffered health issues, which prevented timely compliance. Additionally, there was a change in counsel, financial year-end compliances post-03.03.2025, government holidays, and technical issues during e-filing. The reply, along with the Vakalatnama, was filed on 09.04.2025 before the scheduled hearing. Annexure A/2, a copy of the e-filing receipt dated

09.04.2025, confirms the filing.

5.

The Applicant/Respondents state that during the virtual hearing on 09.04.2025, the Document Management System did not reflect the reply due to technical issues. The e-filing receipt, however, was generated prior to the hearing, as evidenced by Annexure A/2. The Applicant/Respondents contend that not allowing the reply to be taken on record would prejudice the company and its stakeholders, as the reply contains critical facts and documents necessary for adjudication. They further argue that the de