NCLAT Dismisses Appeal in Company Law Matter Following Settlement. Settlement Reached Between Parties Validates Withdrawal of Appeal.

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

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a company appeal filed by Sunandan Kapur and others against ATS Real Estate Builders Pvt. Ltd. The appeal challenged an order dated 17.07.2023, which rejected a Section 7 application in the earlier proceedings of C.P.(IB) No. 810/ND/2022. Initially, the appeal had been dismissed for appellants No. 1, 2, and 3 due to a settlement reached between the parties. On 30.04.2026, appellants No. 4 and 5 indicated that settlement talks were ongoing. In a subsequent hearing, the counsel for appellants No. 4 and 5 confirmed that a settlement had been reached, leading to the decision to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, reflecting the parties' resolution of their disputes. The court emphasized the importance of settlements in resolving company disputes.

Headnote

A) Company Law - Company Appeal - Dismissal of Appeal - Companies Act, 2013, Section 7 - The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn after the parties reached a settlement, indicating that the appellants no longer wished to pursue the appeal. The court acknowledged the settlement and directed the dismissal of the appeal accordingly. Held that the resolution of disputes through settlement is a valid ground for withdrawal of the appeal (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the company appeal should be dismissed following the settlement between the parties.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The tribunal dismissed the company appeal as withdrawn based on the statement of the appellants' counsel confirming the settlement.

Law Points

  • Company appeal
  • Section 7 application
  • settlement of disputes
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (08) 52

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1269 of 2023

2026-08-10

Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Arun Baroka, Indevar Pandey

Mr. Vivek Kumar, Ms. Raveena Paniker

Sunandan Kapur & Anr.

ATS Real Estate Builders Pvt. Ltd.

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

Nature of Litigation

Company appeal challenging an order rejecting a Section 7 application.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to overturn the rejection of their application.

Filing Reason

The appeal was filed against the rejection of a Section 7 application.

Previous Decisions

The appeal had previously been dismissed for some appellants due to a settlement.

Issues

Validity of withdrawal of appeal following settlement Effect of settlement on ongoing litigation

Submissions/Arguments

Counsel for appellants stated that a settlement had been reached. Counsel for the respondent did not contest the withdrawal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court recognized that a settlement between parties is a valid basis for the withdrawal of a company appeal, emphasizing the importance of resolving disputes amicably.

Judgment Excerpts

the company appeal is directed to be dismissed as withdrawn. the settlement with appellants No.4 and 5 has also been arrived at.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed challenging an order rejecting a Section 7 application. The appeal was previously dismissed for some appellants due to a settlement. Subsequent hearings confirmed ongoing settlement talks, leading to the final withdrawal.

Acts & Sections

  • Companies Act, 2013: Section 7
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Court Upholds Criminal Revision Applications Against Dismissal of Complaints for Evasion of Octroi Duty. Complaints Dismissed as Time-Barred, but Court Recognizes Continuing Offence and Economic Implications.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Appeals in Cheque Dishonour Cases Due to Non-Impleadment of Company. Directors Cannot Be Prosecuted Without the Company Being Named as an Accused Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.