Bhim Sain Goyal Liquidator For Metro Jet ... vs Respondent
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 307 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appellate tribunal's reasoning rests on two propositions. First, where the adjudicating authority has rejected an application for dissolution of a corporate debtor with liberty to file a fresh application, the proper course for the applicant is to file a fresh application rather than seek revival of the rejected one. Second, a costs order may be reduced on appeal where, on the facts of the case, the amount imposed is excessive, and the tribunal fixes a reduced figure in the exercise of that discretion.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Bhim Sain Goyal Liquidator for Metro Jet Airways Training Private Limited ...Appellant Versus --- ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Karan Gandhi, Ms. Vidhika Kapoor, Mr. Sikhar Tiwari and Ms. Riya Jain, Advocates.
For Respondent :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
13.02.2026: Heard counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 30.01.2026 by which
order, adjudicating authority has rejected the application filed by the
liquidator being I.A. (IBC) (DIS) No. 2 (JPR)/2025, by which liquidator has
sought dissolution of the corporate debtor.
3. Adjudicating authority noticing certain non-compliance of the statutory
provisions have rejected the application by giving liberty to file a fresh
application for dissolution.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that applicant be permitted
to pursue the said application which may be revived again with correct form
to be filed.
5. Adjudicating authority after having taken the decision to reject the
application with liberty file afresh, we are of the view that proper course open
for the appellant is to file afresh application for dissolution.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that excessive
cost has been imposed for Rs.1 lakhs.
7. In facts of the present case, we are of the view that, the cost need to be
reduced to Rs.10,000/-.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/md
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 307 of 2026 2 of 2
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