Ajit Kumar Gupta vs Uniexcel Limited And Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1686 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's reasoning in this order is confined to clarifying the earlier judgment: where a sum is directed to be paid in foreign currency, the conversion is to be made at the exchange rate prevailing on the date of the original judgment (03.09.2025), not at the rate on the date of the clarification application.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Ajit Kumar Gupta ...Appellants Versus Uniexcel Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha Sr. Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Kalia, Ms. Heena Kochar and Ms. Tannu Rama, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Vivek Sood Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rachit Batra, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
19.09.2025: I.A. No. 5630 of 2025
This is an application praying for clarification of the judgment. Appeal
has been finally decided by this Tribunal vide judgment dated 03.09.2025 in
para-24 of the judgment we directed as follows:-
"24. In view of the foregoing discussions and our conclusion, we are of the view that no grounds have been made out to interfere with the order of the adjudicating authority dated 12.12.2023, admitting Section 7 application against the corporate debtor. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. The interim order stands discharged. The amount deposited under the interim order dated 21.12.2023 be refunded to the appellant. By dismissing the appeal, we leave it open for the appellant to remit the amount of US $ 1,24,000/- and US $ 1,42,000/- totalling to US $ 2,66,000/- to the financial creditor and financial creditor after having received the amount can take recourse to the proceeding under Section 12-A read with Regulation 30A of the CIRP Regulations, 2016. The period from 23.12.2023, till date is excluded from the CIRP. The RP may proceed with the CIRP in accordance with the law. The appeal is dismissed subject to the above. Parties shall bear their own costs."
Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that this Tribunal has given liberty to
pay US $ 2,66,000/-. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that it need be
clarified whether dollars are to be paid in today's exchange rate or on the date
when it was given.
Ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that obviously the said amount
should be on today's exchange rate. We thus are of the view that the said
amount be paid on the exchange rate on the date when order was passed i.e.
on 03.09.2025.
With the above clarification, we dispose of the application.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/NN
2 of 2 I.A. No. 5630 of 2025 in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1686 of 2023
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free