The case involves an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The appellant, Naresh Agarwal, was not present during repeated calls, and the same situation occurred the previous day. The counsel for Respondent No. 2, Mr. Ankit Sareen, was present.
Naresh Agarwal filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). Saroj Gupta & Anr. are the respondents. On April 6, 2023, during the hearing, Naresh Agarwal (the appellant) was absent despite repeated calls. The same absence occurred the previous day. Mr. Ankit Sareen, the counsel for Respondent No. 2, was present. The NCLAT inferred that the appellant was not interested in pursuing the matter. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to non-prosecution. The presence of the respondent's counsel and the continued absence of the appellant were key factors in the dismissal.
Sign in to view the parties.
On repeated call, the…
The appellant…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.
The case involves an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The appellant, Naresh Agarwal, was not present during repeated calls, and the same situation occurred the previous day. The counsel for Respondent No. 2, Mr. Ankit Sareen, was present.
Naresh Agarwal filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). Saroj Gupta & Anr. are the respondents. On April 6, 2023, during the hearing, Naresh Agarwal (the appellant) was absent despite repeated calls. The same absence occurred the previous day. Mr. Ankit Sareen, the counsel for Respondent No. 2, was present. The NCLAT inferred that the appellant was not interested in pursuing the matter. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to non-prosecution. The presence of the respondent's counsel and the continued absence of the appellant were key factors in the dismissal.
On repeated call, the…
The appellant…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.