Imax Infrastructure Pvt. Limited vs Dhiraj Pandey

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 985 of 2022 & I.A. No. 3475, 3877 of 2022

IN THE MATTER OF: Imax Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Aditya Kumar Tibrewal Resolution Professional of Sri Balaji Forest Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kushwaha, Proxy Counsel.

For Respondents : Mr. Aditya Kumar, Ms. Ila Nath, Ms. Anajana Nigam, for R-2. Mr. Abhishek Taneja, Mr. Vasu Bhushan, Mr. Shashank Agarwal & Mr. Surya Sirohi, Advocates.

ORDER

(Virtual Mode)

14.11.2024 No one has put appearance on behalf of the Appellant.

Though, Proxy Counsel Mr. Rahul Kushwaha appears on behalf of the

Appellant through VC. He submits that the Arguing Counsel is in some

personal difficulty today.

We have made it very clear in our order dated 25.10.2024 that if no

one appears on behalf of the Appellant on the next date of hearing then an

appropriate order shall be passed. The said order dated 25.10.2024 is

reproduced as under :-

"Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 prays for time to file the Reply. Let the needful be done before the next date of hearing.

Counsel for Respondent No. 8 submits that Amended Memo of Parties has not been filed till yet, though the order was passed on 01.05.2024 to file the same due to which he is unable to file the Reply. Let the Amended Memo of Parties be filed by the Appellant and serve copy of the same to the Respondent No. 8. Let it be done within two weeks from today.

Counsel for Respondent No. 8 may file the Reply before the next date of hearing.

Proxy Counsel Mr. Rahul Kushwaha appears on behalf of the Appellant through VC. He prays for an adjournment on the ground that the Arguing Counsel Mr. Subhashish Bhowmick has to left for his home town due to some urgent personal difficulty and therefore he is unable to attend the Court today.

This prayer is strongly opposed by the Respondents and submitted that it is only a delaying tactic on the part of the Appellant and at this stage we may add that on 30.08.2024 the Appellant did not appear, though Counsel for the Respondent was present and case was adjourned. On 30.09.2024, the same submission was made and Counsel who had appeared on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the Arguing Counsel is busy in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, so the case was adjourned. Now it appears to us that the Appellant is trying to avoid to argue this case and seeking adjournment through the Proxy Counsel. In the interest of justice, one last opportunity is granted to the Appellant to argue this case. Adjourned to 14.11.2024.

It is made clear that if no one appears on behalf of the Appellant on the next date of hearing then the appropriate order shall be passed."

As it has been argued by Counsel for the Respondent that non

appearance of Counsel for the Appellant is only a tactic to delay the

proceedings and we have also found that the Arguing Counsel is not

appearing in this case from last few dates despite the order dated

25.10.2024.

In such circumstances, we are left with no other alternative but to

dismiss this appeal for non-prosecution.

Dismissed for non-prosecution.

[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)

[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical)

Sim/RR