Bharat Chugh vs Arora Iron & Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd

IN THE MATTER OF: Bharat Chugh ...Appellant

Versus

Arora Iron & Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Navneet R., Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Advocates. For Respondent : Dr. Rajansh Thukral, Mr. Sidharth Thukral, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

29.07.2024: This Appeal has been filed against the order dated

15.07.2024 by which order in Restoration Application No.09 of 2024, the

Adjudicating Authority directed the Applicant to deposit the cost of

Rs.50,000/- within 10 days failing which the Restoration Application was to

be dismissed and the matter has been listed on 22.08.2024.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that cost of Rs.25,000/- has

already been deposited, which was mentioned in the application for

restoration. He has referred to Para 3 and 4 of the application. Learned

counsel for the Appellant further submits that he has already in the

Restoration Application has prayed for restoring the Company Petition and

setting aside the order dated 06.03.2024

3. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that no proof of deposit of

cost of Rs.25,000/- has been filed. He further submits that the order dated

06.03.2024 was an order imposing special cost of Rs.50,000/-.

Cont'd.../ 2

4. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the

Appellant as well as learned counsel for the Respondent.

5. The Adjudicating Authority by order dated 06.03.2024 has dismissed

the Company Petition for non-prosecution as well as non-compliance of

Court's Order and also imposed special cost of Rs.50,000/-. Restoration

Application was filed by the Appellant where following prayers were made:

"PRAYER

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to:

a) Allow the present application and pass an order restoring the captioned matter i.e. CP (IB) NO.

299/CH/2022 in terms of Rule 48(2) of the NCLT Rules, 2016;

b) Set aside the order dated 06.03.2022 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in CP (IB) NO. 299/CH/2022 alongwith setting aside any cost imposed upon the applicant; and

c) Pass any other or further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience."

6. When the Restoration Application came for consideration, following

order was passed on 15.07.2024:

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1435 of 2024 3

"ORDER

Vakalatnama has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner vide Diary No. 02560/6 dated 08.05.2023. It is seen that the order dated 06.03.2024 was passed and the CP (IB) No. 299/Chd/Ph/2022 was dismissed for non-prosecution as well as for the non-compliance of the order with a cost of Rs. 50,000/.

It is observed that the said cost has not deposited so far, therefore, notice cannot be issued to the other side. Therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the Prime Minister National Relief's Fund within ten days, failing which, the RST.A(IBC)/9(CH)2024 will be dismissed straightaway. Last opportunity is granted.

List on 22.08.2024."

7. The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order said that Restoration

Application shall not be considered till the Applicant deposit the amount of

Rs.50,000/- in the Prime Minister National Relief's Fund within 10 days. The

cost imposed on the Appellant was twice, first by order dated 21.11.2023 of

Rs.25,000/- and thereafter again on 07.02.2024 cost of Rs.25,000/- was

imposed. Appellant's case is that he has deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/-

out of said Rs.50,000/- cost.

8. We are of the view that by virtue of the earlier orders cost has been

imposed which was to be deposited before his application is considered. In

so far as direction that he should deposit Rs.50,000/- only then notice shall

be issued, we are of the view that when the said order was under challenge in

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1435 of 2024 4

the Restoration Application, the Court ought not have put such condition for

restoration of the application. We are of the view that more so when the

application for restoration has been filed by which order dated 06.03.2024 is

prayed to be set aside is still under consideration, ends of justice be served in

disposing of the Appeal by directing the Appellant to deposit balance amount

of Rs.25,000/- of cost imposed, on which deposit the Restoration Application

of the Appellant shall be considered, without him depositing amount of

Rs.50,000/- as imposed by order dated 06.03.2024, before the date fixed.

With these observations, we dispose of this appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant has

already deposited the cost of Rs.50,000/-.

10. It is for the Adjudicating Authority to take appropriate decision on the

cost of Rs.50,000/- deposited by the Appellant.

11. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits

of the application.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1435 of 2024