Amit Shah vs Mr. Rajesh Jhujhunwala & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 2321 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The question of whether the appellate tribunal may recall an order recording withdrawal of an application, where the appellant contends the tribunal orally dismissed it for want of jurisdiction, is answered on the record before the court. The tribunal's own record, which shows the application as withdrawn, is to be treated as correct where it is supported by the submissions of counsel present in court, and an appellate tribunal will not recall such an order on the mere basis of a later affidavit by counsel contradicting the record.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Amit Shah ...Appellant
Versus
Rajesh Jhujhunwala & Anr. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Himanshu Satija, Mr. Harsh Saxena, Ms. Riddhi Ranjan, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Rajesh Jhujhunwala (RP, in-person).
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Oral)
19.05.2025: This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.10.2024
by which Restoration Application (IBC) No. 64 (MB) of 2024 filed by the
appellant was dismissed on the ground that the appellant himself has
withdrawn the Interlocutory Application bearing I.A. No. 4327 of 2023.
2. Notice in this appeal was issued and the respondent was served. On
the last date of hearing the respondent was proceeded against ex-parte and
the case was adjourned for ex-parte argument. Today Mr. Manoj Kumar
Mishra, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the Respondent and requested
that he may be allowed to participate in the proceedings as he can throw
light on the issue involved because he was present before the Ld. Tribunal.
We permit Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra to make submission in this case.
3. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the application bearing
I.A. No. 4327 of 2023, listed on 11.06.2024 was order to have been
withdrawn but on that day the Ld. Tribunal dictated the order in the open Cont'd.../ -2-
Court that the I.A is not maintainable on account of jurisdiction and the
application was dismissed. Whereas when the order was uploaded by the
Tribunal then it was shown to have been disposed off as withdrawn.
4. In this regard, it is submitted that an affidavit has been filed by
Mr. Harsh Kesharia, Advocate who had appeared on behalf of the Applicant
before the Ld. Tribunal. However, the Ld. Tribunal did not accept the
contention of the appellant and dismissed the application for restoration by
the impugned order dated 09.10.2024.
5. In this regard, counsel for the Respondent has submitted that he was
also present in court on 11.06.2024 and according to him counsel for the
appellant had simply withdrawn the application, therefore, the Ld. Tribunal
passed the order of withdrawal.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we believe
that the record of the Tribunal is correct and the application has been
dismissed by the Ld. Tribunal on the ground that the said application has
been withdrawn, therefore, we do not find any reason to recall the order
passed by the Ld. Tribunal and hence, the present appeal is hereby
dismissed. No order as to costs.
[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)
[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)
[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) SA/RR Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 2321 of 2024
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