##PAGE1##

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH

COURT – IV Item No.: 18

IA(COMPANIES.ACT)/61(MB)2026 IN

CP/62(MB)2021

CORAM:

SHRI ANIL RAJ CHELLAN SHRI K. R. SAJI KUMAR HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

ORDER SHEET OF THE HEARING (HYBRID) HELD ON 26.03.2026 N AME OF THE PARTIES: MR. VINOD SURANA

VS REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES MUMBAI

For Applicant : Adv. Omkar V Deosthale a/w CS Paresh Deshpande.

Section 252 (1) of the Companies Act r/w Rule 11 of NCLT Rules

O R D E R

IA(COMPANIES.ACT)/61(MB)2026

1. This Application has been filed under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, seeking condonation of delay of 61 days in paying the cost imposed vide order dated

23.06.2023.

2. The Applicant had filed the Company Petition for restoring the name of Ganpatj Constro Projects LLP (hereinafter ‘LLP’). The Company Petition for restoration of the name of the LLP was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 23.06.2023, subject, inter alia, to payment of a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for each financial year during which the LLP has defaulted in filing the statutory returns, to be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. It is submitted that there were disputes among the partners regarding the incurring of costs and the filing of statutory returns, which resulted in a delay in

compliance with the order. Finally, the Applicant has paid the cost with a delay of 61 days. It is further submitted that the LLP holds immovable property situated at Satara, Aurangabad. It is further submitted that in case the delay is not condoned, it would cause irreparable loss to the Applicant. The Applicant has tendered his unconditional apology for the delay in paying the cost and

stated that the delay is unintentional and beyond his control.

3. The RoC has submitted its report raising certain objections mainly relating to the restoration of the name of the LLP on the ground that Section 252 dealing with restoration of LLP was notified subsequent to the filing of the original Petition. However, no objection has been raised regarding the delay in paying

the costs as ordered by this Tribunal.

4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel and the representative of RoC. We have also perused the records of the original Company Petition. The Applicant has admitted the delay of 61 days in making payment and explained the reason for the delay. Furthermore, the Applicant has established that irreparable loss and

injury would be incurred if the LLP's name is not reinstated.

5. As regards the objection raised by the RoC in the report against the restoration, it is with respect to the maintainability of the original Company Petition on the ground that Section 252 was not made applicable to Limited Liability Partnership at the time of filing of the original Company Petition. However, there is no dispute that Section 252 was notified subsequently. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that we are not considering the merits of the order passed for the restoration of LLP, but the application is limited to the condonation of the delay in making the payment in accordance with the order dated 23.06.2023.

6. Given the circumstances, and in the interest of justice, we consider it appropriate to allow the Application. Accordingly, the delay in paying the cost is condoned. The Applicant is directed to pay the cost, as ordered by the Bench dated 23.06.2023, within 30 days from the date of uploading this Order on the website of the Tribunal. The Respondent is directed to restore the name of the

LLP in the Register within 30 days from the date of payment of the cost by the Applicant, subject also to compliance with any other condition as set forth in

the order dated 23.06.2023.

7. Accordingly, this IA(COMPANIES.ACT)/61(MB)2026 is allowed and is disposed of.

Sd/- Sd/-

ANIL RAJ CHELLAN K. R. SAJI KUMAR MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Faizan