NCLAT Grants Extension for Compliance with Cost Payment. Appellant was allowed further time to comply with NCLT's order on payment of costs, subject to conditions.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: CHENNAI
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed by Narasimha Varaprasad Anala against the Registrar of Companies, Telangana, seeking an extension of time for payment of costs amounting to ₹ 12 lakhs and submission of annual returns as directed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 24.10.2024. The appellant claimed he was unable to mobilize the required funds and had previously sought an extension through IA No. 269/2025, which was granted on 31.10.2025, allowing him 30 days from 24.10.2025 to comply. However, the appellant defaulted again and subsequently filed IA No. 134/2026 for another extension, which was dismissed by the NCLT due to lack of patience with repeated defaults. The appellant then approached the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) for relief. The NCLAT, acknowledging the circumstances, granted a further extension of two weeks for compliance but imposed a condition of paying ₹ 1 lakh to the Adyar Cancer Institute as a cost. The appeal was disposed of with a directive to report compliance by 17.09.2026.

Headnote

A) Company Law - Extension of Time - Compliance with NCLT Orders - Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 95/2026 - Appellant sought extension for payment of costs and submission of annual returns as directed by NCLT. The Tribunal granted a further extension of two weeks for compliance, subject to a cost payment to the Adyar Cancer Institute. Held that the appellant was given a final opportunity to comply with the order (Paras 1-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant is entitled to an extension of time for payment of costs and submission of annual returns.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The NCLAT granted the appellant two weeks' time to comply with the NCLT's order, subject to the payment of ₹ 1 lakh to the Adyar Cancer Institute.

Law Points

  • Extension of time
  • compliance with NCLT orders
  • costs payment
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (09) 272

Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 95/2026

2026-09-10

Justice N. Seshasayee, Jatindranath Swain

Mr. CV Shailandran, Mr. Manivannan

Narasimha Varaprasad Anala

Registrar of Companies, Telangana

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal for extension of time regarding compliance with NCLT orders

Remedy Sought

Extension of time for payment of costs and submission of annual returns

Filing Reason

Inability to mobilize the cost amount as directed by NCLT

Previous Decisions

NCLT had previously granted extensions but dismissed the latest application due to repeated defaults

Issues

Entitlement to extension of time for compliance Conditions for granting extension

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued inability to pay costs Respondent's position not detailed

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal allowed a final opportunity for compliance with the NCLT's order while imposing a cost to ensure accountability.

Judgment Excerpts

This appeal is preferred seeking an extension of time for payment of costs of ₹ 12 lakhs and also submission of annual returns. For the present, we allow this application, granting appellant two weeks' time to comply with the condition, but subject to the condition that he pays a cost of ₹ 1 Lakh.

Procedural History

The appellant initially sought an extension through IA No. 269/2025, which was granted. A subsequent application IA No. 134/2026 was dismissed by NCLT, leading to the current appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Companies Act, 2013:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses State's Appeal in Ceiling Act Case — Land Outside Maharashtra Cannot Be Considered for Surplus Land Determination Under Section 3(2) of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The court held that ...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes Dismissal of Final Decree Petition for Default in Partition Suit. Final decree proceedings cannot be dismissed under Order IX Rule 8 CPC as they are a continuation of the suit and must be decided on merits.