Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Anil Kashi Drolia vs Bank Of Maharashtra And Anr

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal6 May 2025

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

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

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