National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
D. R. Balakrishna Raja vs S. R. Shriram Shekar on 22 August, 2025
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AT CHENNAI
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
Company Appeal (AT) (CH)(Ins) No.390/2025
In The Matter of:
D.R. BALA KRISHNA RAJA
Ex - Director and Promoter of BKR
Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd.,
S/o of S.P.Dhanushkodi Raja,
No. 9, Venkatesan Street, T.Nagar,
Chennai -600017. ... APPELLANT
Vs
S.R. SHRIRAM SHEKAR
Liquidator of M/s. BKR Hotels &
Resorts Private Limited.
Flat No. 11, Prayag Apartments, 1st floor,
8/15, Gandhi Nagar, 1st Main Road,
Near Hotel Sangeetha, Adyar,
Chennai -600 020. ...RESPONDENT NO.1
INDIAN BANK
ARM Branch, Ethiraj Salai,
IInd Floor, Egmore, Chennai -600008 ...RESPONDENT NO.2
UNION BANK OF INDIA
SAMB, No.38 & 39, Whites Road,
Royapetah, Chennai - 600014 ...RESPONDENT NO.3
REPCO BANK LIMITED
Repco Towers, ARM Branch,
North Usman Road, T.Nagar,
Chennai - 600017 ...RESPONDENT NO.4
RELIANCE COMMERCIAL FINANCE LIMITED
Ampa Manor, No. 107, 3rd Floor,
1st Street, Aminjikarai, Chennai - 600029 ...RESPONDENT NO.5
Company Appeal (AT) (CH)(Ins) No.390 & 396/2025 Page 1 of 7
M.K.RAJAGOPALAN
30A, Balaji Villa, Beach Road,
Kapaleeswara Nagar, Neelangarai,
Chennai -600115 ...RESPONDENT NO.6
WITH
Company Appeal (AT) (CH)(Ins) No.396/2025
IA Nos. 1152 & 1153/2025
In The Matter of:
D.R. BALA KRISHNA RAJA
Ex- Director and Promoter of M/s.
BKR Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd..
S/o. of S.P.Dhanushkodi Raja,
No. 9, Venkatesan Street, T.Nagar,
Chennai - 600017. ... APPELLANT
Vs
M.K. RAJAGOPALAN
S/o M V Krishnamoorthy, NO.1
30A, "Balaji Villa", Beach Road,
Kapaleeswarar Nagar,
Neelankarai,.
Chennai -600 115. ...RESPONDENT NO.1
S.R. SHRIRAM SHEKAR
Liquidator of M/s. BKR Hotels &
Resorts Private Limited.
Flat No. 11, Prayag Apartments, 1st floor,
8/15, Gandhi Nagar, 1st Main Road,
Near Hotel Sangeetha, Adyar,
Chennai-600 020. ...RESPONDENT NO.2
Present:
For Appellant : Mr. BSV Prakash Kumar, Advocate
For Mr. A. Akash Balagee, Advocate
Company Appeal (AT) (CH)(Ins) No.390 & 396/2025 Page 2 of 7
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 22.08.2025:
Company Appeal (AT) (CH)(Ins) No.390/2025 The instant company appeal is one of the best example of an abuse of judicial process. Challenge in the instant company appeal is to the impugned order, which was rendered as back as, on 17.08.2023 in IA(IBC)/538(CHE)/2023, as rendered in CP/472/IB/2017. From the aforesaid particulars available in order, itself, it is quite clear that the proceedings before the Ld. NCLT was initiated as back as in 2017, and the impugned order, which is put to challenge is that of 2023, and the appeal against it is coming up before this Appellate Tribunal for the first time after lapse of two years.
2. The records revealed that the appeal was preferred with a delay of 23 days and it was not accompanied with, any Condone Delay Application. Hence, the Registry had intimated about the defects to the Appellant on his e-mail address, as supplied in records of the appeal, as back as on 11.10.2023. But the defects were not rectified, and the appeal was kept pending in the same status for last about more than 629 days and was refiled only on 31.07.2025.
Company Appeal (AT) (CH)(Ins) No.396/2025
3. The story of this appeal is similar to the previous one. Challenge in the instant company appeal is to the impugned order, which was rendered as back as on 31.08.2023 in IA(IBC)/633/CHE/2023, as rendered in CP/472/IB/2017. The Company Appeal (AT) (CH)(Ins) No.390 & 396/2025 Page 3 of 7 proceedings before the Ld. NCLT is dating back to 2017, the impugned order, which is put to challenge is that of 2023, and the appeal is coming up for consideration before this Tribunal for the first time after a lapse of two years of passing of the impugned order.
4. The records reveal that in this case too, the appeal was preferred with a delay of 9 days on 09.10.2023 and at that time, it was not accompanied with, any Application to condone delay in filing the appeal, that the Registry intimated the said defect to the Appellant on his e-mail address as supplied on records of the appeal, as back as on 11.10.2023, that the said defect was rectified only after 509 days and the appeal was refiled in complete shape only on 03.03.2025.
5. In the said company appeal, the Appellants have filed an Application being, IA No. 1152/2025, seeking condonation of 509 days of delay that has chanced in the re-filing of the Appeal, and on application IA No. 1153/2025, seeking condonation of delay of 9 days in refiling the principal Appeal that has chanced in preferring the Appeal. It is pertinent to note that, this application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed on 03.03.2025, at a much belated stage.
6. The contention in the instant case, would be that when the Condone Delay Application has not been filed along with the Appeal itself and the same has been filed after a lapse of a sufficient period, that is, after filing of an Appeal as back as on 09.10.2023 and then filing a Delay Condonation Application at a later stage Company Appeal (AT) (CH)(Ins) No.390 & 396/2025 Page 4 of 7 on 03.03.2025. We are of the view that the delay itself does not deserve to be condoned.
7. Besides, if one goes through the application seeking condonation of delay the reason which has been given by the Appellant, as contained in para 2.3 and 2.4 is that the e-mail communication, by virtue of which defects were intimated, was not received by the Appellant. This contingency cannot be accepted because, as per the report of the Registry, the e-mail communication was sent to the Appellant on the e-mail address which was supplied by the Appellant, and its delivery stands affirmed as per the information available with the IT Department of the NCLAT. The second reason which has been taken that the Appellant was suffering from an ailment, which is not supported by any evidence nor has been substantiated by placing on the record the relevant medical documents. Hence, the Delay Condonation deserves rejection.
8. The aforesaid facts in the both the company appeals, explicitly show that there has been absolute carelessness on part of the Appellant for keeping the appeal pending for last two years for no good reasons, and that too without discharging his responsibilities as per the rules for rectification of the defects as provided under the law.
9. Since the law itself contemplates dismissal of such appeal, where the defects are not rectified within the time period, as provided under Rule 26 (3) & Company Appeal (AT) (CH)(Ins) No.390 & 396/2025 Page 5 of 7 (4) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, the appeal ought to have been dismissed as back as on 2023 itself.
10. Today, when the appeal was taken up, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Mr. BSV Prakash Kumar, submitted that he is coming on record on change of vakalath, and prays that the matter may be adjourned in order to enable him to file an appropriate application, to cure the defects as it has been pointed out by the Registry.
11. Looking to the age of litigation and the degree of diligence with which the Appellant has been pursuing the company appeals after its institution before the Registry of this Appellate Tribunal as back as on 09.10.2023, we decline to accede the said request. Besides, the delay in refiling itself is of 629 and 509 days respectively, which is disproportionate and which remains unexplained.
12. The appeal would stand dismissed because of the following reasons:
(i) The appeal would stand dismissed under Rule 26 (3) & (4) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, for rectification of defects.
(ii) The delay in refiling happens to be inordinate of 629 and 509 days respectively. After the defect has been pointed out to the Appellant as back as on 11.10.2023, the Appellant has kept the company appeal pending in orphanage.
On this limited count itself, these 'company appeals' would stand 'dismissed'.
Company Appeal (AT) (CH)(Ins) No.390 & 396/2025 Page 6 of 7
13. After the conclusion of the argument, the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that, if the appeal was defective, it ought not to have been assigned with the regular number by the Registry. Even if such an error has chanced at the hands of the Registry, which rather goes in favour of the Appellant which cannot be utilised as a tool to justify the long-standing pendency of the appeal for over two years due to the slackness of part of the Appellant.
Thus, the 'company appeals' would stand 'dismissed'.
[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial) [Jatindranath Swain] Member (Technical) SN/MS/RS Company Appeal (AT) (CH)(Ins) No.390 & 396/2025 Page 7 of 7