SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 312

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Manisha Agarwal VS


Advocates:
For the Petitioner:ANIRUTH PURUSOTHAMAN G

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL COURT ROOM NO. 1, MUMBAI SINGLE BENCH Item No. 38 RULE 63 APPEAL/9(MB )2026 IN Main Filing No. 2709138094672025 CORAM: SH. SUSHIL MAHADEORAO KOCHEY HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

ORDER SHEET OF THE HEARING ON 14.01.2026 NAME OF THE PARTIES: MANISHA AGARWAL Sec 66(1) Rule 63 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ________________________________________________________________

ORDER

1) Adv. Pratik Panday for the Appellant is present

2) Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant there is no proper justification for explaining the delay of 26 days in filing this appeal. It is submitted that there where the clear copy of the Financial Statements, are not available and therefore could not be complied. However, considering the submissions of circumstances One last opportunity is granted to be removed the objections.

3) However, considering that there is no justifiable ground made out for condoning the delay imposition of costs could be justified.

4) It has not been disputed that the objections were duly notified by the Registry to the Appellant, however, in spite of that there was total inaction on the part of the Appellant and the objections were not removed on time.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top