Mohammad Kashi Kazmi Sole Proprietor Of ... vs Punjab Small Industries And Exports ...
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 186 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an Information Memorandum records that a creditor's claim exists and expressly advises prospective resolution applicants to make their own enquiries about that claim, a claim filed belatedly by that creditor is not thereby rendered impermissible, and the Adjudicating Authority's exercise of discretion in admitting such a belated claim cannot be faulted on appeal on the ground of delay alone. Where an appeal raising the same challenge to the same order has already been dismissed by the Tribunal in an earlier judgment, the Tribunal will not pass a different order in a subsequent appeal against that order, and the later appeal is dismissed following the earlier judgment.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 186 of 2026 & I.A. No. 690 of 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mohammad Kashi Kazmi, Sole Proprietor of Kazmi ...Appellant(s) Enterprises
Versus
Punjab Small Industries and Exports Corporation ...Respondent(s) Ltd. & Anr Present: For Appellant : Mr. Rabshit Gupta, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Ramneeb kaur Mann, Adv. for RP
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 22.04.2026: I.A. No. 690 of 2026: This is an application praying for
condonation of delay of 15 days in filing of the appeal.
2. It has been mentioned in the application that the certified copy of the
order dated 28.11.2025 was received on 20.12.2025. It is submitted that the
Appellant was under wrong impression that 30 days period shall commence
from the date copy of order is received. It is further stated that the Applicant
was undergoing treatment for respiratory infection, hence, could not reach
out to the Advocate. The delay in filing of the appeal is within the condonable
period, we find sufficient cause shown in para 3(ii) of the application for
condonation of delay. Delay condoned.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 186 of 2026
Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and Respondent.
2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.11.2025 passed
by the NCLT, Chandigarh, Court - I in I.A No. 2234 of 2024 which was filed by Respondent No. 1 - Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. By
the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has allowed the application
and hence directed for acceptance of claim of the Respondent.
3. This appeal filed by the SRA. The Appellant submitted that the
observations made by the Adjudicating Authority in para 8 regarding defect
in title are not any good reasons for allowing the application filed by Punjab
Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. which claim was filed with delay
after the plan was approved of the SRA.
4. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that against the same order
dated 28.11.2025 RP had already filed an appeal i.e. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 50 of
2026 Rakesh Phull, RP of Shivam Continental Pvt. Ltd vs Punjab Small
Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. and this Tribunal has dismissed the
appeal on 16.01.2026 affirming the order passed by the Adjudicating
Authority on 28.11.2025. It is submitted that this appeal should also follow
the same fate.
5. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record. In
our judgment dated 16.01.2026 we have already given the reason for
approving the order of the Adjudicating Authority accepting the delayed claim
of Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. In para 6 to 9 we have
made following observations :-
"6. In the Appeal, the copy of the information memorandum has been brought on the record where in the note with regard to letter sent to Corporation following has been stated :
" Note: The land of the corporate debtor at 116-117, Leather Complex, Kapurthala Road, Jalandhar is situated in the industrial estate of PSIEC. It is understood that the PSIEC has made claims in respect of enhancement of land rates. However such claims have not be en received by and are not in the knowledge of the RP at the time of the issue of this document. The RP has requested PSIEC, vide emails dated 15.07.2023, 19.07.2023 and 16.08.2023, to submit their claims, if any, immediately. However, no response has been received till this date. The prospective resolution applicants are advised to make their own inquiries in respect of any claim of PSIEC as described above. The RP shall not be responsible for any consequence in respect of any claim that the PSIEC may have in respect of the corporate debtor."
7. The information memorandum itself captures that there are dues of the Corporation but in spite of the communication, no claim was filed. The note itself, indicate that prospective resolution applicants are advised to make their own enquiries in respect of claim of PSIEC as described above.
8. Thus the Information Memorandum was a clear indication regarding claim of the Corporation and the Adjudicating Authority, by Impugned Order had directed for admitting the claim which was belatedly filed. The Plan is still under consideration. Adjudicating Authority has issued direction to the Respondent No 2 & 3 to accept the claim filed on 19/07/2024 and to take all necessary consequential actions. The order of the Adjudicating Authority thus clearly entitles the RP and the SRA to submit an Addendum to the Adjudicating Authority for consideration after admitting the claim.
9. In the facts of the present case, where claims of the Appellant were duly noticed and reflected in the Information Memorandum, admission of the claim by the Adjudicating Authority, although filed belatedly cannot be faulted and that cannot be a ground for this Appellate Tribunal to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Adjudicating Authority in allowing the application filed by the Corporation for accepting this claim."
6. We are of the view that when the RP's appeal has already been
dismissed challenging the acceptance of delayed claim of Punjab Small
Industries & Export Corporation Ltd., no different order can be passed in the
present appeal. Following the earlier judgment, this appeal is also dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Sheetal/Manu
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