National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Allows Appeal with Directions on Defect Rectification. The Appellant was directed to rectify defects in the Company Petition within 7 days, failing which the petition would be deemed dismissed under Rule 28(4) of the NCLT Rules, 2016.

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

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a Company Appeal filed by M/s. Raychem RPG Pvt Ltd against M/s. Soura Natural Energy Solutions India Pvt Ltd, concerning the dismissal of a Company Petition due to non-rectification of defects. The Appellant claimed to be the Operational Creditor and initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, on 13.12.2024. However, the Registrar of the Tribunal declined to register the application on 31.10.2025, citing unaddressed defects. The Appellant's appeal against this decision was dismissed on 21.01.2026. The Appellant argued that their previous counsel failed to receive notices regarding the defects, leading to a delay in rectification. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had ample opportunity to rectify the defects but failed to do so in a timely manner. The Tribunal found that the Appellant's conduct was not diligent, and the appeal was filed after a significant delay. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the dismissal order, but imposed conditions for rectifying the defects within 7 days and maintained the cost of Rs. 50,000. The decision underscored the necessity for timely action in IBC proceedings and the consequences of procedural non-compliance.

Headnote

A) Company Law - Defect Rectification - Timeliness in Rectifying Defects - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 9 - The Appellant was required to rectify defects in the Company Petition within a specified timeline, failing which the petition was subject to dismissal. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of diligence in pursuing IBC proceedings and allowed the appeal with directions to rectify defects within 7 days, maintaining the cost imposed (Paras 11-12).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Appellant's delay in rectifying defects in the Company Petition warrants dismissal of the appeal.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Appellant to rectify defects within 7 days, maintaining the cost of Rs. 50,000.

Law Points

  • Appellate Jurisdiction
  • Defect Rectification
  • Company Petition Dismissal
  • IBC Proceedings
  • NCLT Rules Compliance
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (06) 1

Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.180/2026

2026-06-10

Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Jatindranath Swain

Mr. Ahsan Allana, Mr. Yohaann Limathwalla

M/s. Raychem RPG Pvt Ltd

M/s. Soura Natural Energy Solutions India Pvt Ltd

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

Nature of Litigation

Company Appeal regarding dismissal of Company Petition due to non-rectification of defects.

Remedy Sought

The Appellant sought to challenge the dismissal of the Company Petition and requested rectification of defects.

Filing Reason

The Appellant claimed to be the Operational Creditor and initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the IBC.

Previous Decisions

The Company Petition was dismissed by the Registrar for failure to rectify defects, and the subsequent appeal was also dismissed.

Issues

Whether the delay in rectifying defects warrants dismissal of the appeal? What are the implications of procedural non-compliance in IBC proceedings?

Submissions/Arguments

The Appellant argued that their previous counsel failed to receive notices regarding defects. The Respondent did not appear to contest the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of timely rectification of defects in IBC proceedings and the consequences of procedural non-compliance.

Judgment Excerpts

The Appellant would rectify the defects as pointed out by the Registry of the Tribunal positively within a period of 7 days from the date of the uploading of the order. The cost as imposed of Rs. 50,000 is maintained.

Procedural History

The Appellant filed a Company Petition on 13.12.2024, which was dismissed by the Registrar on 31.10.2025 for non-rectification of defects. An appeal was filed against this dismissal, which was initially dismissed on 21.01.2026. The Appellant subsequently filed the current appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 9
  • NCLT Rules, 2016: Rule 28, Rule 63
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Allows Defendant to Produce Documents in Cross-Examination Despite Non-Compliance with Order VIII Rule 1A(1) of CPC. Procedural Rules as Handmaid of Justice Permit Production for Limited Purpose of Confrontation When Documents Relate to Pl...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Judicature at Bombay Hears Writ Petition on Retail Dealership Selection. Dispute Over Guidelines Applicability and Evaluation of Marks.