Jugal Kishore vs Punjab National Bank
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1215 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appellate tribunal reduced a costs order imposed on restoration of a dismissed application, and disposed of the appeal on that basis. The reasoning rests on the costs discretion exercised on the facts: the restoration was already allowed, and in view of the circumstances the Tribunal considered Rs. 2 lakhs excessive and reduced it to Rs. 25,000, payable pending the next hearing before the Adjudicating Authority. No general principle governing the imposition or quantum of costs on restoration is laid down; the reduction is tied to the particular factual matrix recited.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Jugal Kishore Personal Guarantor to JSD Steels ...Appellants Private Limited (Formerly Known as CBS Steels Private Limited) Versus Punjab National Bank ...Respondents Present: For Appellants : Mr. Karan Gandhi, Adv. Riya Jain. For Respondents : Appearance not marked.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
10.07.2026: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has drawn our attention towards
the order dated 26.05.2026 and submits that this order passed by the
Learned Adjudicating Authority in the original petition though was passed
on 26.05.2026 but could only be uploaded on 02.06.2026.
3. By showing the order dated 02.06.2026, it is again submitted that this
order (26.06.2026) was uploaded on 09.06.2026 and in between on
05.06.2026 the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution and the
Appellant was not at all in knowledge of the dates fixed in this case after
26.05.2026 and while allowing the Restoration Petition, vide impugned order
dated 30.06.2026, the Learned Adjudicating Authority unnecessarily
imposed cost of Rs. 2 Lakhs.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also submits that the Petition
moved by the Appellant under Section 94 of the court was not admitted by
the Adjudicating Authority and even no Resolution Professional was
appointed and when this was dismissed for want of prosecution the notice
was also not issued to the creditors. In view of this we dispense notice to the
sole respondent.
5. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the
record and the factual matrix in totality and having an eye on the fact that
Learned Adjudicating Authority has already allowed the restoration
application and restored the petition filed by the Appellant under Section 94
of the court, we are of the view that the cost of Rs. 2 Lakhs imposed by the
Adjudicating Authority may be reduced to 25,000/-.
6. Let the cost of Rs. 25,000/- as modified by us shall now be deposited
by the Appellant, as directed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority in its
impugned order, till, the next date of hearing scheduled before Ld.
Adjudicating Authority.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is finally disposed of.
Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan Member (Judicial)
Arun Baroka Member (Technical)
Indevar Pandey Member (Technical)
mt/beena
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