National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
Yash Deep Trexim Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Prithvi Devcons Private Limited & Ors on 15 December, 2025
1
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
NEW DELHI
COMPANY APPEAL (AT)NO.297 OF 2025
In the mater of:
Yashdeep Trexim Pvt Ltd & Anr Appellant
Vs
Prithvi Devcons Pvt Ltd & Ors Respondent
For Appellant:Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr Advocate, Mr. Atanu Mukherjee, Advocate
for Appellant No.1
Ms Malvika Trivedi, Sr Advocate, Mr Sejal Jain, Advocate for Appellant No.2.
For Respondent:Ms Akanksha Mehra, Advocate for R13.
Ms Sapna Choubey, Advocate for R4.
Mr Ishaan Saha, Mr Saurav Ganguly, Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate for R1 to R3.
Mr Rishav Banerjee, Mr Dripto Majumdar, Respondent No.6 to 8.
Mr. Zain A Khan, Advocate for R5
Mr M Senapati, Advocate.
M PP Biswal, Advocate. Mr. Patal Dass, Advocate for R14.
ORDER
HYBRID MODE 15.12.2025: This company appeal is filed against an impugned order dated 24.09.2025 passed in Company Appeal CP/137(KB)/2025 wherein on the principle of Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the Ld. NCLT instead of passing an order as contemplated under Section 10 CPC had rather dismissed the company petition.
2
2. The Ld. NCLT was of the view that since the allegations levelled and prayers sought in the Company Petition notably had already been preferred before the coordinate bench of Ld. NCLT and the same is pending consideration, hence it did not deem fit to entertain the present company petition.
3. The Ld. NCLT further found that the allegations and the subsequent prayers res subjudice in terms of Section 10 CPC in view of petition filed before the coordinate bench of the Tribunal and accordingly the Ld. NCLT had dismissed the company petition while considering that its dismissal shall not come in the way of the parties to avail any order from the Ld. coordinate bench, Court No.II on merits. The relevant paras of the impugned order are as under:-
24. In the present case, as the allegation levelled and the prayers sought for herein, notably has already been preferred before the collateral bench of this Tribunal, and the same is pending consideration, we deem it fit not to entertain the present one at this juncture. We are aware that the present petition has been reserved on September 2, 2025 for passing appropriate orders for ad-interim stage, however, upon considering the arguments advanced by all the parties and perusal of all the documents on record, we find that the allegations and the subsequent prayers are res subjudice in terms of Section 10 of CPC before the collateral bench of this Tribunal and accordingly, we are of the considered opinion to dismiss the present one.
25. However, dismissal of this company petition may not come in the way of the parties to avail any order from the Learned Collateral Bench (Court II) on merits. The Learned Collateral Bench (Court II) may dispose of the matter on its merits. The parties are free to agitate their allegations and counter allegations before the Learned Collateral Bench (Court II).
26. In view of such, the present company petition is dismissed as infructuous (sic)..
4. Before proceeding further let us examine Section 10 of CPC. It is as under:-
3
10. Stay of suit .-
No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in [India] having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of [India] [Substituted by Act 2 of 1951, Section 3, for " the States" . ] established or continued by [the Central Government] [Substituted by A.O. 1937, for " the G.G. in C." . ] [* * *] [The words " or the Crown Representative" omitted by A.O. 1948. ] and having like jurisdiction, or before [the Supreme Court] [Substituted by A.O. 1950, for " His Majesty in Council" .
].Explanation .-The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in [India] [Substituted by Act 2 of 1951, Section 3, for " the States"
. ] from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.
5. The principle of Section 10 as stated therein, do not contemplate the dismissal of the suit or a petition, rather it premise on the principle that there should not be conflicting judgements on the same facts. Thus, per Section 10 of the CPC the Court if satisfied that if the matter in issue in lis before it is also directly and sufficiently in issue in a previously instituted lis between the same parties litigating under the same title, and that where such lis is pending, such court has jurisdiction to grant a relief claimed in the present petition, and it shall not proceed with the trial of the suit/lis pending before it.
6. Nowhere Section 10 empowers the Court to dismiss the suit at this stage but it simply says the Court shall not proceed with the trial till the previously instituted suit is heard and decided. Thus we find that there was no basis to dismiss the petition upon the principle of Section 10 CPC. Hence we set aside the impugned order and request Ld. NCLT to look into the facts of both the petitions and only in case if it forms an opinion per ingredients of Section 10 it 4 may proceed in accordance with law. However, the parties are free to file an application for clubbing of the petitions before the Ld. NCLT if they so desire.
7. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Pending applications No.7314, 7315, 7316 7227 od 22025 are also disposed of.
(Justice Yogesh Khanna) Member (Judicial) (Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra) Member (Technical) Bm/rr