Creative Capital Services Limited vs Akshaj Estates Private Limited

Creative Capital Services Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Akshaj Estates Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Prakhar Mithal, Mr. Gaurav Raj, Advocates.

For Respondent :

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

12.08.2025: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This appeal has

been filed against the order dated 05.08.2025 limited to the extent by which

the Adjudicating Authority while allowing the Restoration Application

No.53/ND/2025 has imposed cost of Rs.1 Lakh on the Appellant.

2. The Appellant has filed Section 7 application which came to be

dismissed for non-prosecution on 05.06.2025. Within 30 days, the Appellant

filed application for restoration being Restoration Application

No.53/ND/2025 which although has been allowed by the impugned order on

05.08.2025 but while allowing the application a direction has been issued

imposing cost of Rs.1 Lakh on the Appellant.

Cont'd.../

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that in the Company Petition

no notice was issued to the Corporate Debtor at any point of time. It is

submitted that there was no occasion for imposing cost of Rs.1 Lakh.

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

Appellant and perused the record.

5. In facts of the present case, we see no reason to issue notice to the

Respondent. With liberty to the Respondent to apply for modification or

vacation of this order, we proceed to decide the appeal.

6. In Para 10 of the impugned order the Adjudicating Authority has made

following observations:

"10. The Applicant has filed this present application i.e. RA/53/ND/2025 on 24.06.2025. Be that as it may, we take note of the reasons given by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant for non-appearance and hold that the nonappearance was unintentional and not deliberate therefore, this restoration application stands allowed for the reasons mentioned by the Applicant subject to payment of Cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lakh Rupees) to be deposited in the 'Prime Minister's National Relief Fund' within one week of this Order."

7. When the Adjudicating Authority itself has observed that

nonappearance was unintentional and not deliberate, which was reason for

allowing the Restoration Application, we fail to see any cause for imposition

of cost. When the Adjudicating Authority itself held that nonappearance was

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1208 of 2025 2 of 3 unintentional and not deliberate, we find no reason for imposing cost of Rs.1

Lakh on the Appellant. We thus are of the view that imposition of cost of Rs.1

Lakh deserve to be deleted and is accordingly deleted. Appeal is disposed of

accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Archana/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1208 of 2025 3 of 3