Gulshan Kumar Sachdev vs Mr. Ashish Singh (Rp Of M/S Piyush ...
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1617 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The imposition of costs on restoring an application must rest on reasons stated in the order; an order that restores an application subject to costs without indicating the reasons for those costs cannot be sustained to that extent, and the costs component is set aside.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Gulshan Kr Sachdev ...Appellant(s)
Versus Ashish Singh ...Respondent(s)
Present: For Appellant : None.
For Respondent : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli and Ms. Palak Kalra, Advocates. ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
17.10.2025 Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Abhishek Anand.
By this appeal, the Appellant is challenging the order dated 27.08.2025
passed in I.A. No. 875 of 2025 by which the Appellant is praying for
restoration of I.A. No. 475 of 2025. Although the Adjudicating Authority has
allowed the prayer but imposed cost of Rs. 25,000. The Appellant is
aggrieved by the part of the order by which cost has been imposed.
We have heard Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant as well as Ld.
Counsel appearing for the Respondent.
The impugned order imposes cost is as follows:
"Having regard to the facts and circumstances mentioned in the application and to meet the ends of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore IA-475/2025, subject to payment of the cost of Rs. 25,000/ to be deposited in Prime Minister's National Relief Fund (PMNRF) within one week, failing which appropriate order will be passed."
The order does not indicate the reasons given by the Adjudicating
Authority for imposing the cost of Rs. 25,000. We, thus, are of the view that
the cost impose cannot be sustained and cannot be approved. Appeal is
partly allowed.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Abhishek/nn
2 of 2
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