NCLT Cannot Allow Alternate Prayers After Rejecting Main Prayer Without Cogent Reasons: NCLAT New Delhi
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Yogesh Khanna (Member-Judicial) and Ajai Das Mehrotra (Member-Technical), has held that the adjudicating authority cannot reject the main prayer without cogent reasons and allow the alternative prayers. The appeal was filed against the order of the NCLT, Mumbai...
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Yogesh Khanna (Member-Judicial) and Ajai Das Mehrotra (Member-Technical), has held that the adjudicating authority cannot reject the main prayer without cogent reasons and allow the alternative prayers.
The appeal was filed against the order of the NCLT, Mumbai Bench.
The appellant argued that the adjudicating authority has erred in directing the meeting of the unsecured creditors of the second applicant. In the impugned order, the adjudicating authority directed to conduct the meeting and submit the report before it.
The appellant highlighted that it was only the alternate prayer that was made, which was different from the main prayer. However, the NCLT rejected the main prayer without any cogent reason and allowed the alternate prayer. Hence, the impugned order suffers from the apparent error.
It also contended that its application for modification was dismissed on the technical grounds, citing the reason that the same bench is not considering the application under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules; therefore, it cannot allow it.
Observations of the NCLAT
The tribunal observed that in another case the tribunal allowed the correction/modification application; therefore, the present application should not be rejected solely because of the fact that it was not dealt with by the same bench.
Further, the tribunal observed that the NCLT dismissed the main prayer without any cogent reason and allowed the alternative prayer; hence, it would be correct to remand back the matter to the NCLT.
Therefore, the NCLAT set aside the impugned order and directed the NCLT to relook into it.
Case Name: Ini Agri Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: Company Appeal (AT) No. 218 of 2025 & I.A. No. 5507, 5509 of 2025
For appellant: Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Gaurav H. Sethi, Mr. Rahul Pawar, Mr. Rahul Kapoor, and Ms. Alina Meran, Advocates
Bench: Justice Yogesh Khanna (Member-Judicial) and Ajai Das Mehrotra (Member-Technical)
Order Date: 11.09.2025