Alta Performance Materials India Llp vs Cmt Mechanised System Private Limited
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 497 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The dismissal of a Section 9 application for non-prosecution cannot rest on the applicant's disagreement with a repayment schedule discussed between the corporate debtor and the applicant, since such disagreement is not a ground for dismissing the application for non-prosecution; the Appellate Tribunal therefore set aside the dismissal order and revived the application, directing that it be disposed of expeditiously without any adjournment sought by the appellant, while expressing no opinion on its merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Alta Performance Materials India LLP ...Appellant(s)
Versus
CMT Mechanised System Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Vishesh Kalra, Deepak Saxena, Simran Shadiya, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Vikrant Yadav, Rajiv Kumar, Adv.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 22.05.2026: This appeal has been filed against the order dated
17.02.2026 by which order, the AA has dismissed the application filed under
Section 9 of the Code for non-prosecution.
2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant has been
prosecuting the proceedings and the AA has observed that the Appellant is
not interested in the prosecuting the present petition which is not correct and
on the said date i.e. 17.02.2026 Ld. Counsel for the Applicant had also
appeared and was present. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant further submits that
there was certain discussion regarding repayment schedule between the CD
and the Applicant whereas the Applicant has expressed disagreement with
the repayment schedule but that could not be a ground for dismissing the
section 9 application for non-prosecution.
3. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that in the facts and
circumstances, the matter needs to be sent to the AA for fresh consideration.
4. In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the order of 17.02.2026 revive
Section 9 application. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the
Appellant shall not pray for any adjournment before the AA. The AA shall
endeavour to dispose of the application at an early date. We make it clear that
we are not expressing any opinion on the merit of the case.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Sheetal/Manu
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