Lekhi Forgings Private Limited vs Ashok Kumar Golecha
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1448 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The imposition of costs on a party by an adjudicating authority must rest on reasons stated in the order; an order that imposes costs without giving any reason for them cannot be sustained. Costs cannot be imposed on an applicant merely because a related application concerning the same property was decided against another party in a separate proceeding, where the applicant's own application, seeking registration of units in its favour on the ground of possession since 2020, is not shown to be frivolous or otherwise unjustified.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Lekhi Forgings Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant(s)
Versus Ashok Kumar Golecha ...Respondent(s)
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Lokesh Malik, Mr. Maulk Chokshi and Ms. Atika Chaturvedi, Advocates.
For Respondent : None. ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
17.10.2025 This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated
30.06.2025 passed by the NCLT, Court-V, Mumbai Bench in I.A. No. 3564 of
2024 the Adjudicating Authority while rejecting the I.A. No. 3564 of 2024
imposed cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the Appellant.
Ld. Counsel for the Appellant confines prayer in this appeal only to
the imposition of cost of Rs. 50,000/- which has been imposed by the
impugned order. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the application
was filed by the Appellant seeking a direction to register the property in the
name of Applicant, the resolution plan approval application is pending
before the Adjudicating Authority.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and perused on record
the Appellant having confined prayers in the appeal only to the imposition of
the cost, no other issue needs to be noticed. The Adjudicating Authority in
the impugned order relied on the order in I.A. No. 3834 of 2024 where the
subject property was held to he assets of the Corporate Debtor and could not be excluded from the assets of the Corporate Debtor. The order of the
Adjudicating Authority does not indicate any reasons for imposition of cost
of Rs. 50,000/-. The mere fact that in an order passed in I.A. No. 3834 of
2024 asset was held to belong to the Corporate Debtor could not be any
reasons for imposing the cost of Rs. 50,000/- on an application which was
filed by the Appellant seeking a direction to register the units in favour of
the Appellant. In this application the Appellant had pleaded that he is in
possession of the unit since, 2020.
We, thus, are of the view that in the facts of the present case
imposition of cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the Appellant cannot be approved. The
appeal is dismissed subject to deletion of cost of Rs. 50,000/- as imposed by
the impugned order.
[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