M/S Hsb Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd vs Mali Ram Bhilwal & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: ADS Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Formerly M/S ...Appellant HSB Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd.) Versus

Mali Ram Bilwal & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Yash Anand, Mr. Sumit & Mr. Naveen Swami, Adv. For Respondents : None.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

14.07.2026 I.A. No. 4789 of 2026

Keeping in view the averments made in the application for delay

caused in refiling of the appeal, the delay of 12 days occurred in filing the

appeal is hereby condoned.

Comp. App. (AT) No. 263 of 2026

1. Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record.

2. The instant appeal has been moved by the Appellant who was an

Applicant before the Learned Adjudicating Authority in Restoration

Application No. 63(ND) of 2023, being aggrieved by the Impugned Order

dated 12.05.2026 whereby the cost of Rs. 2,00,000/- was imposed on the

Applicant/ Appellant passed.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the aforesaid

Restoration App/63/ND/2023 came before the Learned Adjudicating

Authority on 17.03.2026 and having regard to the difficulty faced by the

arguing counsel a Proxy Counsel has appeared on behalf of the Applicant

Page 1 of 4 and by noticing that the Proxy Counsel is not able to assist the Tribunal

cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed by the Learned Tribunal to be paid in

the Prime Minister Relief Fund till the next date of listing and date

12.05.2026 was fixed in the Restoration Application.

4. It is further submitted that in between an application for waiver of

this cost was prepared and filed by the Appellant on 09.05.2026, however,

without any fault of the Applicant, the waiver application could not come

before the Tribunal on 12.05.2026 and during the course of proceedings

without any basis, simply on the fact that the Counsel for the Appellant has

referred to the waiver application in hi submissions, the cost of

Rs. 1,00,000/- which was imposed vide order dated 17.03.2026 was

enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/-.

5. It is further submitted that on 19.05.2026, the waiver application

came before the Tribunal being I.A. No. 188/ND/2026 for disposal and the

same was dismissed on the ground that already the contents of this

application has been considered while passing orders dated 17.03.2026 and

12.05.2026.

6. It is vehemently submitted that there was no occasion for the Learned

Adjudicating Authority to impose a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- either on

17.03.2026 or enhancement of cost to Rs. 2,00,000/- on 12.05.2026, as

on17.03.2026 the Proxy Counsel was not able to assist the Court as the

Counsel for the Appellant/ Applicant was in personal difficulty and on

second day i.e., 12.05.2026 the cost has been enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/-

only on the ground that the Counsel for the Appellant has referred to a

Page 2 of 4 waiver application which was unfortunately not placed before the Tribunal

without any fault of the Applicant.

7. We at the outset place on record that the matter of imposing or

waiving off the cost is a matter between the Court and the party to whom

the cost has been imposed, therefore, we dispense the issuance of notice of

this appeal, so far as the Respondents are concerned.

8. Having gone through the record, the facts of the case appears to be

not in dispute. The order dated 17.03.2026 and 12.05.2026 as well as the

Impugned Order dated 19.05.2026 passed by the Tribunal are already on

record.

9. Perusal of the order dated 17.03.2026 would suggest that the arguing

Counsel for the Applicant was in personal difficulty on that day and he has

deputed a Proxy Counsel, who could not assist the Tribunal and for this

reason a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed by the Tribunal.

10. We understand that the Proxy Counsels generally are not in a position

to assist the Courts as they do not hold the brief.

11. So far as the second occasion i.e., on 12.05.2026, is concerned the

Learned Counsel for the Applicant/ Appellant has only mentioned about the

cost waiver application filed by him on 09.05.2026, which was not available

on record and being annoyed by the same, the cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- was

enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/-. We do not find any cogent reason on which the

Tribunal could enhance the cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/-. Simply

because the Appellant has referred to an application, which he had filed on

09.05.2026 and which was not before the Tribunal for no fault of him the

cost should not be enhanced.

Page 3 of 4

12. Significantly, the waiver application being I.A. No. 188/ND/2026

which was moved for waiving of cost appears to have also not been

considered on merits by the Tribunal as the same has been disposed of only

on account of the fact that on earlier occasions i.e., on 17.03.2026 and

12.05.2026 the orders has been passed by the tribunal.

13. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of

the considered view that there were no occasions before the tribunal to have

imposed the cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 17.03.2026 or enhancing the same to

Rs. 2,00,000/- on 12.05.2026. The cost must be imposed in appropriate

cases for cogent reasons and not otherwise.

13. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and for

the reasons given herein before the appeal preferred by the Appellant is

allowed and the cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed by the tribunal vide order

dated 17.03.2026 which has been enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/- vide order

dated 12.05.2026 is hereby waived of.

14. There is No order as to costs.

15. Interim Application, if any, is also disposed of.

[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical)

Sim/mr

Page 4 of 4