Braham Arenja vs M/S Indirapuram Habitat Centre Private ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.393 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The order dismissing the applications for non-prosecution was set aside and the applications restored to the Adjudicating Authority for hearing and decision in accordance with law, the Tribunal having found that the ends of justice required this course on the facts of the case: the appellants were present in court and were unable to hear the calling of the matters or reach the dais before the applications were rejected for non-prosecution.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Braham Arenja ...Appellant
Versus
Indirapuram Habitat Centre Pvt. Ltd. Through Sh. Naresh Kumar Sharma Resolution Professional ...Respondent
With
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.376 of 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
Brinda Arenja ...Appellant
Versus
Indirapuram Habitat Centre Pvt. Ltd. Through Sh. Naresh Kumar Sharma Resolution Professional ...Respondent
With
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.377 of 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
Braham Arenja & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Indirapuram Habitat Centre Pvt. Ltd. Through Sh. Naresh Kumar Sharma Resolution Professional ...Respondent
Present: For Appellants: Mr. Piyush Singh, Mr. Akshay Srivastava and Ms. Riddhi Jain, Advocates.
Cont'd.../ -2-
For Respondent: Mr. G. P. Madaan, Mr. Aditya Madaan, Mr. Aishwarya Adlakha, Advocates with Mr. Naresh Kumar Sharma, IRP in person for IRP.
ORDER
06.04.2023: These three Appeals have been filed against the same order dated 08.02.2023 rejecting the I.A. filed by the Appellants for non-prosecution.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that although the Appellant was present in the Court but cannot hear the calling of the application(s) and cannot reach the dais, by the time application was rejected for non- prosecution.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that all the applications were listed and everyone was aware of the listing of the applications. He, however, submits that the Court in the same order has imposed cost while allowing some applications.
4. In facts of the present case, we are of the view that ends of justice be served in setting aside the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dismissing the I.As for non-prosecution. The orders passed in respective I.As being I.A. Nos. 4739/2022, 4740/2022 and 4741/2022 are set aside and I.As are restored before the Adjudicating Authority to be heard and decided in accordance with law. Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 393, 376, 377 of 2023
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