NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH (COURT-I), CHANDIGARH (An application under Rule 11 of the of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016)

In the matter of:

M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Having its registered office at

2^nd Floor, D-10, No. 1-2, D Block, Local Shopping Centre, Vasant Vihar New Delhi-110057 ……Financial Creditor Vs.

M/s Doon Valley Rice Ltd.

Through its Director Mr. Mohit Kumar Having its registered office at Outside Jundla Gate, Karnal, Haryana ......Corporate Debtor AND IN THE MATTER OF:

M/s Doon Valley Rice Ltd.

Through its Director Mr. Mohit Kumar Having its registered office at Outside Jundla Gate, Karnal, Haryana ......Applicant Vs.

M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Having its registered office at

2nd Floor, D-10, No. 1-2, D Block, Local Shopping Centre, Vasant Vihar New Delhi-110057 ……Non-Applicant/ Petitioner Order delivered on: 19.02.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. KHETRABASI BISWAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. SHISHIR AGARWAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Present: -

For the Applicant : Ms. Aakriti Mittal, Advocate For the Financial Creditor : M r . Manish Jain, Senior Advocate Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate

ORDER

1. The present Application has been filed by the Corporate Debtor (hereinafter referred to as the “Applicant”) in CP(IB) No. 200/Chd/Hry/2025 under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 seeking recall of the order dated 18.11.2025, whereby this Tribunal struck off the right of the Applicant to file reply, in view of the continued failure of the Applicant to file its reply despite directions issued by this Tribunal vide order dated

29.07.2025 granting time of one week for filing the same.

Brief Facts:

2. Brief facts of the instant Application, as averred in the Application which are relevant to adjudicate the issue involved in the case, are summarised as follows:

(i) The captioned Company Petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was filed by the Financial Creditor on 24.07.2025 seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor and the matter has been pending adjudication before this Tribunal.

(ii) When the matter was listed on 29.07.2025, this Tribunal issued notice and granted opportunity to the Corporate Debtor to file reply within 1 (one)

week and the matter was thereafter listed for 17.09.2025. On 17.09.2025, a proxy Counsel appeared on behalf of the Corporate Debtor and sought adjournment on the ground of illness of the main Counsel, and the matter was adjourned to 18.11.2025 with a last opportunity to file a reply.

(iii) The Applicant has submitted that on 14.11.2025, when steps were taken to file the reply and an application before the Registry, it was discovered that the reply had been misplaced by the clerk among other files in the office of the Counsel. It is further stated that the authorised representative of the Applicant was required to sign the pleadings and, being out of station, could not reach before the next date of hearing.

(iv) It is further averred that when the matter was taken up on 18.11.2025, certain applications filed on behalf of the Applicant were not listed due to technical issues. This Tribunal, found that the reply had not been filed despite sufficient opportunity given to the Applicant, and hence, struck off the right of the Applicant to file reply and listed the matter for arguments.

(v) Aggrieved by the said order dated 18.11.2025, the present Application has been filed under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 seeking recall of the order and permission to place the reply on record, on the ground, inter alia, that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to the circumstances stated above.

(vi) In support of the prayer for recall, the Applicant has relied upon judicial precedents, inter alia, Rafiq and Another v. Munshilal and Another (AIR

1981 SC 140) and Smt. Lachi and Others v. Director of Land Records (AIR 1984 SC 41) wherein it has been held that a litigant