Vijay Data Vs Data Ingenious Global Ltd. & Ors. (NCLAT Delhi)
Summary: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in Vijay Data Vs Data Ingenious Global Ltd. & Ors., examined whether the National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, could direct parties to appear personally to explore an amicable settlement in a long-pending oppression and mismanagement dispute. The appellant challenged an order dated 12 March 2026 dismissing his application for recall of the NCLT’s order dated 19 February 2026. The underlying company petition had been pending since 2009, and the appellant contended that arguments had already concluded. He argued that earlier mediation attempts had failed and that another settlement exercise would merely delay adjudication. He also referred to previous litigation in which costs of ₹2 lakh had allegedly been imposed on the respondents for delaying tactics.
The appellant relied on Rupa & Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Firhad Hakim & Ors., 2025 INSC 245, to argue that mediation could not be imposed without the parties’ consent. He also cited Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Cherian Varkey Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 24, raising concerns that a judge personally participating in unsuccessful settlement negotiations should not subsequently adjudicate the dispute because of possible apprehensions of bias. The appellant submitted that Jaipur had only one Bench and that judicial involvement in mediation could create procedural difficulties.
The NCLAT observed that Section 442(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 empowers the Tribunal to refer matters for mediation on its own motion. However, it distinguished a formal referral to mediation from merely directing parties to appear to explore the possibility of settlement. The NCLT had considered that the parties were related, the dispute had remained pending since 2009, multiple proceedings had taken place before higher courts, and one of the appellants had died during the litigation. Against that background, the NCLAT held that calling the parties to assess the possibility of an amicable resolution did not prejudice their rights and was not beyond the NCLT’s jurisdiction. The appellate tribunal clarified that if the NCLT subsequently decided to refer the matter to mediation, the principles of the Mediation Act and the judgments relied upon by the appellant, including Rupa & Co., could be considered.
The NCLAT therefore declined to interfere with the NCLT’s decision to explore settlement. Nevertheless, to maintain a cordial atmosphere for possible discussions, it waived the costs of ₹25,000 imposed on the appellant and modified the impugned order to that limited extent. The appeal and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of. The ruling distinguishes an initial judicial effort to explore settlement from an actual direction compelling parties to undergo mediation.
Cases Discussed
- Saurabh Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Vijay Solvex Limited & Ors.; Company Appeal No. 1/2015: Referred to by the appellant to support his contention that earlier settlement efforts had failed and that costs of ₹2 lakh had been imposed on the respondents for delaying tactics.
- Rupa & Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Firhad Hakim & Ors. (Supreme Court); 2025 INSC 245: Relied upon by the appellant for the principle that mediation cannot be imposed on unwilling parties without consent. The NCLAT clarified that this principle may become relevant if a formal mediation referral is subsequently made.
- Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Cherian Varkey Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court); (2010) 8 SCC 24: Cited by the appellant regarding concerns about adjudication by a judge who has participated in unsuccessful settlement negotiations.
FULL TEXT OF THE NCLAT JUDGMENT/ORDER
This appeal is filed by the appellant against an impugned order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the Ld. NCLT, Jaipur in CA No.3/JPR/2026 in CP No.53(ND)2009 whereby the Ld. NCLT had dismissed the appellant’s application seeking recall of the order dated 19.02.2026 passed by the Ld. NCLT, Jaipur. It is submitted the appellant alongwith others have filed a company petition aggrieved by the acts of oppression and mismanagement by the Respondents herein before the Ld. Company Law Board seeking relief on account of alleged wrongful acts by Respondents No.1 to 8.
2. It is submitted the arguments of the appellant was concluded, but on 19.02.2026 the Ld. NCLT passed the following order: –
“Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has partly advanced the arguments. Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents’ state that the respondents are ready and willing to resolve the issue by Medication. Let Mr. Babu Lal Data and Mr. Vijay Data remain present in person on the next date of hearing for exploring the possibility of resolution. To come up for further consideration on 26.02.2026.”
3. The appellant filed an application for recall of order dated 19.02.2026 alleging earlier too the efforts were made to resolve the matter amicably in mediation but the Respondents did not come forward and in one of such cases between the parties viz. Company Appeal No.1/2015 titled as Saurabh Agrotech Pvt Ltd & Ors Vs Vijay Solvex Limited and Ors, a cost of Rs.2 lakh was imposed upon the Respondents because of their unwarranted delay tactics.
4. It is submitted even otherwise, the consent of the appellant was required to send the matter to mediation per Rupa & Co Ltd and Anr Vs Firhad Hakim and Others, 2025 INSC 245 wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the mediation cannot be thrusted upon either of the parties and consent of the parties is required. It is submitted despite noting the judgement stated above, and also while noting earlier too the efforts were made to settle the disputes amicably by different courts at different times, the disputes could not be resolved and thus as this petition is pending since2009, and as the appellants have concluded their arguments; sending the matter again to mediation would be a futile exercise and hence be not initiated. It is further argued firstly the appellant have not given any consent for mediation and secondly as per Afcons Infrastructure Ltd V Cherian Varkey Construction Co Pvt Ltd (2010) 8 SCC 24 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held if a judge is doing settlement negotiation and he fails then he should not deal with the adjudication of the matter to avoid apprehension on bias, it is submitted there is only one Bench at Jaipur and if presiding Judge enters into mediation himself then the case would have to be transferred to another Bench.
5. In any case at this stage, what we gather from the impugned order is the impugned order is passed per Section 442(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 which gives the suo moto power to the Ld. Tribunal to refer the matter for mediation.
6. In its impugned order, the Ld. NCLT noted the parties are related to each other; the petition is pending since 2009; there are multiple litigations before the High Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court and further that the appellant No.1 had expired during the pendency of the proceedings, and in these circumstances the presence of the parties was sought to explore the possibility of settlement and in no manner prejudices the rights of the parties. The impugned order does not disclose the Ld. NCLT has actually referred the matter to mediation. It is simply to call the parties so as to explore the possibility of settlement, if any, due to reasons aforesaid and it cannot be said to be beyond jurisdiction; thus it requires no interference. However, in case the Ld.NCLT decides to refer the matter to mediation, then principles enshrined in the Mediation Act; the law laid down in Rupa and Company (Supra) and other judgements referred to by the appellant in his recall application, may be looked into.
7. Considering the fact the Ld. NCLT is trying to settle the disputes amicably, hence to maintain cordial atmosphere, we waive the cost of Rs.25000/- imposed upon the appellant herein. To this extent the impugned order stands modified.
8. With these observations the appeal stands disposed of.
9. Pending applications being IA No.2631, 2786, 2787 of 2026 are also disposed of.
