Hari Kishan vs Umesh Gupta
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1659 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's reasoning rests on the following propositions, stated in the order the Tribunal takes them. A delay in filing an appeal may be condoned where the appellant shows sufficient cause, and where the explanation offered (here, that the appellant is an agriculturist of limited means without legal knowledge, who took time to obtain advice) is accepted as bona fide and not deliberate. A resolution plan approved under the corporate insolvency resolution process binds all stakeholders; consequently, a claim to continue a leasehold right in respect of the corporate debtor's property, made after the commencement of the CIRP and in the face of an approved plan, cannot be enforced against the process, and an application seeking such a declaration is properly rejected. Rejection of an application of this nature does not foreclose the applicant from pursuing whatever remedy the law otherwise makes available outside the insolvency proceedings.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Hari Kishan ...Appellant Versus Umesh Gupta, RP, Mountain Meadow Holidays Pvt Ltd & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Chaudhary, Advocate.
For Respondents : Ms. Nimita Kaul, Advocate for RP.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
08.12.2025 : I.A. No. 6535/2025
1. This is an application praying for condonation of 15 days delay in filing
of the appeal.
2. The reasons given by the appeal is in paragraph 5 of the application,
which is as follows:
"5. The Appellant most respectfully submits that he is a farmer by occupation, engaged full-time in cultivation, and is not conversant with the technicalities of law or the remedies available thereunder. On account of his limited means, lack of legal knowledge, and the time taken to seek appropriate legal advice, there occurred some delay in preferring the present Appeal against the impugned order dated 25.08.2025. The delay is neither deliberate nor intentional but occasioned by bona fide circumstances. The Appellant, having now understood the legal remedies available to him, has approached this Hon'ble Tribunal with utmost diligence and good faith, and grave prejudice would be caused if the delay is not condoned."
3. Reply has been filed by the RP opposing the application for condonation
of delay.
4. We, however, find sufficient cause shown in the application for delay
condonation in filing of the appeal.
Delay condoned.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1659/2025
1. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 25.08.2025, by which
I.A. No. 4137/ND/2025 filed by the appellant has been rejected.
2. Appellant by the application has sought direction to recognise and
protect the applicant's leasehold rights under the Agreement and declare that
the same shall not be disturbed during the subsistence of lease term except
in accordance with law.
3. The adjudicating authority rejected the application and has observed
that after the commencement of CIRP no right accrued/continue or subsisted
in favour of the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that leasehold rights of the
applicant was not the subject matter of the CIRP. Counsel for the appellant
further submits that now the resolution plan has already been approved.
5. The resolution plan under CIRP binds all stakeholders, we thus do not
find any error in the order rejecting the application. However, we make it
clear that rejection of the application of the appellant shall not preclude the
appellant to take such remedy as available in the law.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1659 of 2025 & I.A. No. 6535 of 2025 2 of 3 With these observations, the appeal is dismissed.
Learned counsel for the RP submits that Lease Agreement claimed by
the appellant was not a registered document.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/md
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1659 of 2025 & I.A. No. 6535 of 2025 3 of 3
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