Ashok Deoram Chaudhari vs Small Industries Development Bank Of ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 653 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal's reasoning rests on two points. First, an appeal against an order appointing a resolution professional will not be entertained at the threshold where the appellant has not yet filed a reply before the Adjudicating Authority; the appellant must take all its pleas in that reply before the Adjudicating Authority, and the Tribunal will not entertain such an appeal at that stage. Second, delay in filing an appeal is condoned where the appellant shows sufficient cause, here established by the appellant's absence at the hearing and receipt of the order only on a later date, the Tribunal finding nothing in the order to contradict that absence.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Ashok Deoram Chaudhari Through his Next Friend, ....Appellant Mr. Samir Chaudhari Vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India ...Respondent For Appellant Ms. Priyanka Sethia, Advocate. For Respondent CA Rakesh Jindal, Ms. Bharti Nawlani, Mr. Narendra Singh, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
05.04.2024: I.A. No. 2340 of 2024:- Learned Counsel for the Appellant
submits that the delay was caused in the appeal since the appellant was not
present when the order was passed and order was received by the appellant
only on 13.01.2024. A perusal of the order does not indicate that the Appellant
was not present. We find sufficient cause to condone the delay. Delay is
condoned.
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 653 of 2024
This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.12.2023 passed
in application under Section 95 by which Resolution Professional has been
appointed.
2. Learned Counsel for the financial creditor submits that the appellant
has not filed reply before the Adjudicating Authority. The order having been 2
passed for appointment of RP, we see no reason to entertain this appeal at this
stage. It is for the appellant to take all pleas in the reply filed before the
adjudicating authority.
3. With these observations, we dismiss the appeal.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)
Anjali/nn
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