Dr Manish Tardeja vs Neha Vishal Dhomse & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Dr. Manish Nandlal Tardeja ...Appellant(s)

Versus Neha Vishal Dhomse & Anr. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant(s) : Mr. Krishan Kumar, Mr. Ravi Kumar and Mr. Nitin Pal, Advocates.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deval Dighe, Advocate for R1 and R2.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

14.05.2026 This Appeal has been filed against the order dated

29.01.2026 passed by the Adjudicating Authority by which order Section 94

application filed by the Appellant has been dismissed for want of prosecution,

last paragraph of the order, which is as follows:

"Under such facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dismissed this Petition for want of prosecution. Accordingly, this Company Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution and IA is disposed of having infructuous."

Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Section 94 application

was filed. Resolution Professional was appointed on 21.01.2025 who

submitted the report. The Adjudicating Authority has passed an order on

13.10.2025, which is as follows:

ORDER CP 790/2023 & IA 1665/2025: - "Vide order dated 21.04.2025, RP was directed to serve copy of the petition to all the creditors and accordingly time was granted to the creditors to file their objections within two weeks. Learned counsel for the RP appearing through VC today submits that the service on the creditors have been done by way of e-mail, however, no Affidavit of Service has been placed on record despite a lapse of nearly 5 months. Noting such facts, we again direct the RP to serve copy of the RPs Report as well copy of the petition on the creditors within one week by e-mail as well as by registered/ speed post and accordingly, the affidavit of service be placed on record a week thereafter. Two weeks' time is granted to the creditors to file their reply in respect of the petition and the report of the RP. It is noted that in case the creditor do not file their reply within two weeks of service of the RP report and the copy of the petition it shall be presumed that they are not interested to file reply and their right to file reply shall stand forfeited. List this CP along with IA for further consideration on 28.11.2025."

Before, on 29.01.2026, earlier date was 28.11.2025, when the matter

could not taken due to paucity of time and thereafter, the case was taken on

29.01.2026, on which day application has been dismissed.

Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 and R2 who are

appearing for the Intervenors submit that Appellant has been delaying the

proceedings and to enjoy the moratorium under Section 94, which has been

noted by the Adjudicating Authority also in the impugned order. It is

submitted that rejection of the application has rightly been made since the

Appellant in abusing the process of the Court. In the facts of the present case,

we are of the view that it is not necessary to issue notice to the Resolution

Professional. Ends of justice be served in setting aside the order 29.01.2026

and reviving the application as well as report of the Resolution Professional

for fresh consideration.

2 of 3 We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on contentions

of the either of the parties and it is for Adjudicating Authority to take a fresh

decision in accordance with law. We only observe that present was not for

dismissal for want of prosecution, since, the Appellant was present and

pursuing his proceedings. In result, we set aside the order 29.01.2026 and

revive Section 94 application as well as report of the Resolution Professional

for a fresh consideration.

The Appeal is disposed of.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) Abhishek/md

3 of 3