Case Note & Summary
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal addressed a Company Appeal filed by Tanya Verma, the Executrix of the deceased Ravi Nandan Sahaya, challenging an order from the Tribunal dated 28.04.2026. The order pertained to the issuance of notices for the substitution of the deceased in ongoing proceedings. The appellant contended that the Tribunal should not undertake substitution proceedings, arguing that such matters should be resolved in succession proceedings. However, the Tribunal found this contention unpersuasive, emphasizing that the law mandates these issues to be addressed by the principal court as per Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Tribunal noted that the mere issuance of notice for substitution did not justify invoking appellate jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal directed that all related questions under Order XXII Rules 3 and 4 should be considered by the learned Tribunal on their merits. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, affirming the procedural correctness of the Tribunal's actions regarding substitution.
Headnote
A) Company Law - Substitution of Parties - Appellate Jurisdiction - Dismissal of Appeal - Company Appeal dismissed as the Tribunal's issuance of notice for substitution does not warrant appellate intervention. The court held that the substitution proceedings should be considered by the principal court under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the appeal lacked merit (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal can undertake proceedings for substitution of a deceased party.
Final Decision
The Company Appeal was dismissed as it lacked merit, with the Tribunal affirming that substitution matters should be addressed by the principal court under the relevant provisions of the CPC.
Law Points
- Substitution of parties
- Appellate jurisdiction
- Order XXII Rule 5 CPC
