Iifl Home Finance Limited vs Mr. Ayyagari Viswanadha Sarma Rp Of M/S ...
- CitationComp. App (AT) (Ins) No. 385 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an application has been listed and heard on merits in the presence of a proxy counsel for the applicant, and no grounds are shown for recalling the resulting order, the Adjudicating Authority does not err in rejecting an application to recall that order; a party cannot seek recall of a merits decision on the mere contention that its counsel did not make submissions which the order does not record, absent any ground warranting recall.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: IIFL Home Finance Ltd. ...Appellants Versus Ayyagari Viswanadha Sarma ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Swapnil Gupta and Mr. Tarun Mishra, Advocates. For Respondents :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
07.03.2025: I.A. No. 1438 of 2025
This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. We
find sufficient cause shown in paragraph-3 of the application for condoning
the delay. Delay condoned.
CA (AT)(Ins) No. 385/2025
2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 02.01.2025 by which
order RA No. 147 of 2024 filed by the appellant to recall the judgment dated
19.07.2024 has been rejected. The order dated 19.07.2024 was passed in IA
No. 2768/2024 which was filed by the appellant. The Adjudicating Authority
by the impugned order has rejected the application.
3. The Counsel for the appellant submits that counsel for the appellant
could not make submission and none of the submission is recorded in the
order hence the order ought to be recorded. When we look into the order
dated 19.07.2024 it is clear that proxy counsel on behalf of the appellant was present and it was the application filed by the appellant himself, court
proceeded to decide the application on merits. Present is not a case where any
grounds have been made out to recall the order dated 19.07.2024 hence
Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting the application.
Appeal is dismissed.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that proxy counsel had no
authority in the matter.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
harleen/NN
2 of 2 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 385 of 2025 & I.A. No. 1438 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