2026 (4) TMI 1677

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondent : Mr. Chethan Kumar, Advocate For R1, R2 ORDER Oral Judgment: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial): The Appellant in the instant Company Appeal, preferred under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, puts a challenge to the impugned order dated 06.02.2026 as passed by the Ld. NCLT, Bengaluru Bench in CA/103/BB/2025 as preferred in CP/74/BB/2025. The consequential effect of the impugned order had been that, in the proceedings under Section 58 of the Companies Act, 2013, the application for condonation of delay as preferred in CA/103/BB/2025 has been allowed, resulting into a condonation of 36 days of delay that has chanced in preferring the petition, CP No. 74/BB/2025. 2. If we meticulously scrutinise the pro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....documents, which should not be taken into account because he was not granted an opportunity to controvert the same and to file a rejoinder to the said memorandum, which was filed in support there to for the purposes of justifying the condonation. 5. There will be two-fold answer to the argument extended by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. So far as the aspect pertaining to the supply of documents by the petitioner on 06.01.2026 is concerned, though the Appellant in his memorandum of Appeal, under the head of "Violation of Principles of Natural Justice (Audi Alteram Partem)", has taken a plea that, no opportunity was provided to him to rebut the pleadings and documents filed by the Respondent / Petitioner before NCLT, in the entire plea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ies Act, 2013, the ailment in itself, as pleaded in the application, stands substantiated by the documents filed in support there to. It cannot be ruled out that, the deponent to the Affidavit which was filed in support of the Company Petition was not ailing on that particular time period, and even that is not the case of the Appellant also. The medical certificates itself are the proof of ailment, particularly when any of them are not denied or even denied at this Appellate stage. Thus, the reason which has assigned by the Ld. Tribunal, for the condonation of delay, which was on account of the ailment of the petitioner, doesn't seem to be unreasonable. 8. In extension to his argument, the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has argued that, a....