Dresier Commodities Pvt. Ltd vs Jaipuria Buildcon Pvt. Ltd
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 705 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal against the order admitting the corporate insolvency resolution process is dismissed for non-prosecution, where the appellant's counsel was absent on the date of hearing after the matter had been adjourned at the appellant's own instance on three successive dates; the Tribunal declined to go into the merits of the case on that ground. Where an appeal has been dismissed, a connected appeal filed against the rejection of a Section 7 application by the other party, which proceeds on the same subject matter, may be dismissed as withdrawn on the counsel's statement that the appellant has no further grievance in view of that dismissal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Ashok Goel Erstwhile Director Jaipuria Buildcon Pvt. ...Appellant Ltd.
Versus
Mrs. Pallavi Gupta and Padam Thakur & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellants : None For Respondent : Mr. Akash Srivastava, Advocate for R1 to 22 Mr. Shivanshu Kumar, Advocate for R23
With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 290 of 2022
IN THE MATTER OF: Dresier Commodities Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Jaipuria Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent Present: For Appellants : Mr. Akshay Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : None
ORDER
06.10.2023 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 705 of 2022
None appeared on behalf of the Appellant whereas the Learned Counsel
for the Respondents are present.
Order sheet reflects that continuously on last three dates, the appeal
was adjourned on the request made on behalf of the Appellant and today there
is none appearance.
The Status Report submitted by the IRP reflects that the Appellant was
accused in number of cases and he is proclaimed of offender against whom process under Section 82 of Cr.PC has already been issued. Besides this
status report also reflects that there is total non-cooperation by the Corporate
Debtor, which appears to be contemptuous.
Be that as it may, without going into the merit of the case, considering
the fact that on repeatedly last three dates, the appeal was adjourned at the
instance of the Appellant and today there is none appearance, the appeal
stands dismissed due to non-prosecution.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 290 of 2022
Mr. Akshay Sharma, Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that
since the present appeal has been filed against the order whereby Section 7
of IBC application of the Applicant was rejected and the first appeal i.e. CA
(AT) (Ins) No. 705 of 2022 was filed against the initiation of CIRP under Section
7 of IBC filed on behalf of the other party and in view of the dismissal of the
aforesaid appeal i.e. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 705 of 2022, the Learned Counsel for
the Appellant submits that the present Appellant has got no grievance and as
such Learned counsel for the Appellant seeks permission to withdraw this
appeal. Permission is allowed.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn in view of the
dismissal of appeal i.e. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 705 of 2022.
[Justice Rakesh Kumar] Member (Judicial)
[Mr. Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Sheetal/Ravi
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