Global Energy Private Limited vs Tata Motors Limited
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1818 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an application has been dismissed for non-prosecution on the recorded statement of the applicant's counsel, the applicant cannot, in appellate proceedings, challenge that dismissal on the merits of the application; the statement recorded by the court in the impugned order cannot be questioned in the appeal, and the remedy lies in a fresh application before the Adjudicating Authority.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellants Versus Tata Motors Ltd. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt and Ms. Lavanya Garg, Advocates.
For Respondents : Ms. Nandini Gore, Ms. Swati Bhardwaj and Mr. Mohammad Shahyan Khan, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
11.12.2025: This appeal has been filed against the order dated
18.09.2025 by which Restoration Application 41/2025 has been dismissed
with following observation:-
"ORDER Restoration Application/41/2025 Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submits that the captioned petition is dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 28.09.2022, and he has not filed any merit in the present Application.
In view of this, the Restoration Application/41/2025 is dismissed for non-prosecution."
Ld. Counsel for the appellant sought to challenge the order contending
that there was sufficient reason given in the restoration application. It is further submitted that no such statement was made that 'application be
dismissed that application has no merits'.
We are of the view that when the application was dismissed for the non-
prosecution on the statement of the counsel for the applicant, applicant
cannot be allowed to challenge the order on merits. The statement which is
recorded by the court in the impugned order cannot questioned in the
appellate proceeding, if so advised the applicant may file an application before
the Adjudicating Authority.
With these observations appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/MD
2 of 2 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1818 of 2025
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