Ashwini Mehra vs Agrawal Infrabuild Private Limited
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 610 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appellate tribunal reasoned that a direction issued by the adjudicating authority to file a composite reply raising preliminary issues is an exercise of its discretion over the conduct of its own proceedings, and that a party cannot appeal against such a procedural direction; the liquidator was therefore bound to comply with it rather than challenge it by appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Ashwini Mehra, Liquidator of Punj Lloyd Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Agrawal Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raghav Chadha and Mr. Mukund Rawat, Advocates.
For Respondent : Mr. Karan Sharma and Mr. Mohit Siwach, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
17.04.2026 : Heard counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal has been filed against an order passed by the adjudicating
authority dated 25.02.2026, which order is to the following effect:
"Appeal (IBC) - 01/2026
1. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that as per the directions of this Adjudicating Authority he has filed the reply with regard to the maintainability of the application. Under the facts and circumstances, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent is directed to file composite reply raising the preliminary issues within 7 days supplying advance copy to the other side.
2. List the matter along with IA-4713/2024; Appeal IBC 54/2023; IA-3532/2021; IA-1699/2024; CA- 2823/2019; IA-1899/2021; CA-580/2020; IA- 3027/2021; Ivn. P-7/2025; IA-5328/2025; IA- 2738/2022; IA-3840/2024 on 11.03.2026."
3. Learned Sr. counsel Mr. Sunil Fernandes appearing for the appellant
submits that Appeal (IBC) - 01/2026 was earlier heard on 12.01.2026 and
following order was passed:
"New Appeal (IBC) - 01/2026 Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Sunil Fernandes appearing for the Liquidator seeks and is granted permission to file preliminary objections to this application. At request and with consent of the parties, list the matter on 10.02.2026."
4. It is submitted that appellant has already filed the reply raising all
objections and there was no occasion to pass further order for directing the
composite reply to be filed raising the preliminary issues.
5. The Court heard the parties on 25.02.2026 and passed the order as
indicated above. What was directed by the Court was to file composite reply
raising the preliminary issues. When the Court has issued a direction to the
appellant to file composite reply raising the preliminary issues, we see no
reason to entertain any appeal at the instance of the liquidator objecting to
the said order of the Court.
6. It was the discretion of the Court to direct the liquidator to file the
composite reply raising the preliminary issues, the liquidator was to comply
the said order.
Appeal is dismissed.
Comp. App. (AT) No. 610 of 2026
2 of 3 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that within two weeks
appellant shall file the composite reply as directed by the adjudicating
authority.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/md
Comp. App. (AT) No. 610 of 2026 3 of 3
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