IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL: NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH ITEM No. 09 CP. No. 148/241-242/PB/2020 IN THE MATTER OF:

Ashmeet Singh …. Petitioner Vs MSD Telematics Private Limited …. Respondent Order under Section 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Order delivered on 27.03.2025 CORAM:

JUSTICE RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR HON’BLE PRESIDENT SHRI RAVINDRA CHATURVEDI HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

HYBRID HEARING (PHYSICAL & VC)

PRESENT:

For the Applicant : None For the Respondent : None ORDER

1. On 18.03.2021, Ld. Counsel Mr. Arun Khatri for the petitioner appeared. Then, on 03.06.2021, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Thereafter, in the months of December 2021 to March 2022, Ld. Proxy Counsels appeared. On 28.07.2022, Ld. Counsel Mr. Arun Khatri and Mr. Sahil Khurana for the petitioner appeared but was not audible due to poor internet connectivity at his end.

2. On 22.09.2022, Ld. Counsel Mr. Siddharth Chopra and Mr.

Manas Bhatnagar appeared and stated that there was a change of counsel. The following order was passed:

“ ORDER CA-233/2021, CA-369/2021, CA-370/2021 Ld. Counsel for the petitioner states that there is a change of counsel for petitioner and an adjournment has been sought from the newly engaged counsel.

At the request of the Ld. Counsel, list the matter on

15.12.2022.”

Then the case was listed for hearing on 15.12.2022.

3. On 15.12.2022, Ld. Counsel Mr. Manas Bhatnagar for the petitioner appeared, and the following order was passed.

“ ORDER CA-233/2021, CA-369/2021, CA-370/2021 An order has been passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal dated 22.09.2022 is as follows:

"Ld. Counsel for the petitioner states that there is a change of counsel for petitioner and an adjournment has been sought from the newly engaged counsel.

At the request of the Ld. Counsel, list the matter on

15.12.2022."

Today when the matter came up for hearing Ld.

Counsel states that there is a problem with the security code and he sought directions to the registry to this effect. It appears that the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is not serious in prosecuting the matter otherwise he would have taken up this issue with the Bench much earlier. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to dismiss this petition.

Accordingly, Petition 148/241-242/PB/2020 dismissed. File be consigned to records.”

4. Thereafter, the petitioner aggrieved by the above order appealed to Hon’ble NCLAT, and Hon’ble NCLAT restored the company petition by an order dated 09.08.2024 and directed the matter to be listed on 03.09.2024. The orders read as follows:

“09.08.2024: This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated 15.12.2022 whereby the Comp. Appeal No. 148/2020 was dismissed by the Ld. NCLT on the ground the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant was not serious in prosecuting the matter.

2. Learned Counsel Mr. Navneet Thakran, Advocate for Appellant is present before us. He submits earlier the matter was being dealt with by Mr. Arun Khatri, Advocate but on 22.09.2022 they were appointed as Counsels to pursue the Comp. Appeal No. 148/2020 (Supra) and an adjournment was sought on the said date, as recorded by the Ld. NCLT on 22.09.2022.

3. The Learned Counsel for Appellant has submitted a letter before the Registry for grant of a security code for filing a Vakalatnama wherein they were informed they have to get NOC from earlier Counsel. On 10.11.2022 they got NOC from Mr. Arun Khatri, Advocate, the earlier Counsel and it is annexed as Annexure A-27 to the appeal. Thereafter the Registry again called upon them to obtain NOC from the very first Counsel i.e. Mr.

Suchinto Chatterji, Advocate.”

4. It is alleged they were making efforts but in the meanwhile on 15.12.2022, the matter came up before the Ld. NCLT when it was dismissed on the ground the Appellant is not serious in prosecuting the matter. It is alleged right from 22.09.2022 till 15.12.2022 they were seriously prosecuting the matter and since were directed by the registry to obtain NOC they were acting as per directions.

5. We are satisfied wit