Aarti Tubes Private Limited vs Mahender Kumar Khandelwal

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 217 of 2026 & I.A. No. 792 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: Aarti Tubes Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant(s)

Versus Mahender Kumar Khandelwal Resolution Professional ...Respondent(s) of Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. Present: For Appellant : Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Mr. Anupinder Jassal, Mr. Ujwal Sharma, Advocates.

ForRespondents : Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vajayant Paliwal, Ms. Charu Bansal, Ms. Kirti Gupta, Ms. Mehak, Advocates for RP/ R1

Mr. Bishwajit Dubey, Mr. Spandan Biswal, Mr. Kaustubh Rai, Mr. Akshit Awasthi, Advocates for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Ms. Sabhya Jain, Ms. Muskan Jain, Advocates for SBI

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

16.02.2026 I.A. No. 792 of 2026 This is an Application praying for

condonation of delay in filing the Appeal.

2. Order impugned was passed on 31/10/2025 and this Appeal had been

e-filed on 08/01/2026. In the Application filed for condonation of delay,

Counsel for Appellant submitted that earlier Appellant has filed one

combined Appeal against the order dated 07/09/2025 and 31/10/2025

which Appeal was filed on 10/11/2025 within 30 days. However, registry

raised an objection that against two orders, single Appeal cannot be

entertained which objection was raised on 05/12/2025.

3. Thereafter, Appellant was constrained to file two separate Appeals

against the order dated 10/09/2025 and 31/10/2025 and the present

Appeal have been filed against the order dated 31/10/2025. Ld. Counsel for

Appellant relies on an order of this Tribunal in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No 911

of 2024 where an I.A. No 4921 of 2024, where the condonation of delay was

allowed where in the similar circumstances, Appeal was filed within 30 days,

but on account of objection of registry, a fresh Appeal was filed.

4. This Tribunal took the view that since the Appeal initially against the

order impugned was filed within 30 days, the subsequent filing on the basis

of objection of the registry cannot be treated to be filing beyond 30 days.

5. Ld. Counsel for Respondent refuting the submissions submit that

Appellant ought to have refiled the Appeal after removing objections whereas

he had filed a separate Appeal, its relations with earlier Appeal had snapped

and he cannot take benefit of earlier filing.

6. We have considered submissions of the Parties and perused the

record. It is on record that the earlier Appeal filed by the Appellant on

10/11/2025 was also against the order dated 31/10/2025 but on account of

objection raised on 05/12/2025 by registry, two separate Appeals were filed.

Present Appeal having been filed against the order dated 31/10/2025.

2 of 2

7. The Appellant having already filed the Appeal within 30 days, we are of

the view that Application for condonation of delay needs to be allowed in the

facts and circumstances of the present case and that Appeal has to be held

to be filed within time.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 217 of 2026 Ld. Counsel for Respondent

raised a preliminary objection on Appeal. He submitted that again the

Appellant by earlier order dated 10/09/2025, ex parte order was passed and

the order dated 31/10/2025 was subsequent order since Appellant has

already proceeded ex parte, he has no jurisdiction to file the Appeal against

the subsequent order.

2. We are of the view that against the order dated 31/10/2025, even

though it was ex parte order, Right of remedy of Appeal cannot be lost for

any person who feels aggrieved hence, we do not find any merit in the

objection of the Counsel for Respondent. Objection overruled.

3. This Appeal have been filed against the order dated 31/10/2025 in

CA-330/ND/2018. Adjudicating Authority passed following order.

"CA-330/ND/2018: Due to paucity of time, the hearing is deferred to 14.11.2025. However, in the meantime, the status qua regarding there in the property in question should be maintained by all concerned parties."

2 of 2

4. In the Application, CA-330/ND/2018, notices were issued and

Adjudicating Authority passed an order on 10/09/2025 to proceed the ex

parte and on next date 31/10/2025, the impugned order was passed.

Ld. Counsel for Respondent submitted that it is open for the Appellant

to file an Application for setting aside the order proceeding ex parte as well

as the interim order of the Status quo.

5. In the facts of the present case, we are of the view that course open for

the Appellant is to file Application for setting aside order proceeding ex parte

as well as the interim order passed on 31/10/2025. In the facts of the

present case, we are of the view that ends of justice be served in giving

liberty to the Appellant to file the above two applications, as submitted by

the Counsel for the Respondent also. We make it clear that we are not

expressing any opinion on merits of either Parties contention and it is for the

Adjudicating Authority to consider and take appropriate decision at an

earlier date.

6. With the above observations, the Appeal is disposed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) Prerana/md

2 of 2