National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
Mittal Brothers Pvt Ltd vs Bhagirathi Megacity Development ... on 25 November, 2025
1
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
NEW DELHI
COMPANY APPEAL (AT) No.281 of 2025
In the matter of:
Mittal Brothers Pvt Ltd Appellant
Vs
Bhagirathi Megacity Development Pvt Ltd & Ors Respondent
For Appellant: Mr Sandeep Bajaj, Ms Nakashvir S Aulakh, Ms Ujjwala Gupta,
Mr. Siddhath Joshi, Mr Subham Madaan, Advocates.
For Respondent: Ms Shilpa Chauhan, Advocate.
ORDER
HYBRID MODE 25.11.2025: This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated 08.08.2025 whereby an application IA No.21/2025 filed by the appellant under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 under Section 242(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 has been dismissed.
2. It is the grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant the said application contains prayers from clause (b) to (l) but whereas the application has been decided considering the prayer made in clauses (b) to (f) and the prayers from (g) to (j) have not been considered at all by the Ld. NCLT.
3. Though the arguments were raised qua the Development Agreement dated 11.10.2010 between the parties, wherein a piece of land was to be brought in by the Respondents no. 3 and 4 in the Respondent No.1 company, in which company 80% shares are held by the appellant herein and 20% shares are held 2 by Respondents No.3 and 4. Besides the submission that the land is being developed by the appellant, though disputed by the Respondent, it is alleged the Development Agreement has been wrongly cancelled by Respondents No.3 and 4 in March 2020, for which a Civil Suit No.2429/2022 was filed by the appellant and the disputes above have been referred to Arbitration. The arbitration proceedings are still pending.
4. The appellant instituted Company Petition No.159/2023 wherein various prayers were made, including allegation the Respondents have not been attending Board Meetings, General Body Meeting, hence financial accounts/statements could not be prepared and directions were sought for appointing a nominee director as the ratio of quorum is 1:1 for both the appellant on one side and Respondents no. 2 and 3 on the other.
5. We have heard the learned counsels and have perused the impugned order. We are of the considered view the Ld. NCLT though had dismissed the prayers to grant of status quo as civil litigation qua such disputes is still pending, but prayers sought in clause (g) to (j) admittedly have not been considered at all by the Ld. NCLT and as such it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the Ld. NCLT, to consider the prayers made in clauses (g) to (j) of IA No.21/2025.
6. With these observations the appeal stands disposed of. We request the Ld. NCLT to dispose of the remaining prayers in the said application within four weeks from 3rd December, 2025.
3
7. IA No. 6753, 6754 and 6657 of 2025 are also disposed of.
(Justice Yogesh Khanna) Member (Judicial) (Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra) Member (Technical) Bm/rr