Anil Kashi Drolia vs Bank Of Maharashtra And Anr
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1485 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A resolution professional who fails to file his report within the time prescribed by the Tribunal, and who does not apply for an extension of that time, is liable to be visited with costs; the Tribunal's imposition of costs for an inordinate and unexplained delay, where the explanation offered (ill health of a family member) is unsatisfactory, does not warrant interference on appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1485 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5107, 5400, 5401 of 2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Anil Kashi Drolia ...Appellant
Versus
Bank of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellants : Mr. Manoj Mishra, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Jaydeep Palani, Adv. for R2 Zulfiq Multani, Adv. for R1
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain; (Oral)
06.05.2025: This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.04.2024
by which the Appellant has been saddled with a cost of Rs. 50,000/- which
has been ordered to be deposited in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within
10 days from the date of the order.
2. In brief, the Appellant (RP) was appointed as such on 16.01.2024 and
was ordered to file his report within 10 days from the date of order i.e. up to
26.01.2024, however, the Appellant submitted its report online on 12.03.2024
and physical copy was filed on 26.03.2024.
3. Thus, it is clear that the Appellant caused the delay of more than two
months in filing the report despite the fact that he was categorically asked to
file the same within 10 days from 16.01.2024.
4. The Tribunal has observed that if there was any difficulty on the part of
the Appellant in filing the report within the prescribed time, he could have
sought an extension of time by filing an appropriate application but the
Appellant did not care to seek extension of time and delayed the report by two
months.
5. The Tribunal found that the delay was inordinate and the explanation
given was not satisfactory, therefore, imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/-.
5. In the present appeal, the Appellant has argued that the report could
not be filed because of the ill health of his father who resides in the State of
Bihar.
6. However, during the course of hearing, he submitted that his father
suffered paralyse about 10 years back, therefore, we are also not satisfied with
the reason assigned by the Appellant for not filing the report within the
prescribed time.
7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find
any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed though
without any order as to costs.
I.As, if any, pending is/are hereby closed.
[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)
[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)
[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical)
SC/RR
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