Mr. Dushyant C. Dave vs Dera Finvest Private Limited And Ors & ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1292 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal, in deciding an application to condone a delay within the condonable limit, holds that a delay of 15 days, supported by the appellant's explanation that legal advice was needed before preferring the appeal, is sufficient cause for condonation, so that the application is allowed. It further holds that, because the appeal concerns a resolution professional's right to agitate his remuneration, which is a substantive statutory right, a degree of leniency and fairness is to be shown in condoning delay, and that the professional's role under the Code, which differs from that of a debtor or creditor drawn into litigation, supports such leniency.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Dushyant C. Dave ...Appellant Versus Dera Finvest Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Mr. Vipul Jai and Mr. Mayank Binani, Advocates.
For Respondents : Mr. Jatin Kumar, Mr. Akshay Chaudhary, Shaunak Hiwarkhedar, Advocates for R-1.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
02.04.2026: The RP has preferred an appeal, which concerns his
remuneration for the professional services rendered. In filing this appeal, a
delay of 15 days has intervened, for condoning of which the appellant has
taken out I.A. No. 5039 of 2025. In the affidavit filed in support of the said
application, the appellant states that he needed to get some legal advice for
preferring the appeal, which resulted in delay. Learned counsel, however,
strongly objected to this and contended that, even though the delay is within
the condonable limit, the appellant has not shown any sufficient cause of the
same. He placed reliance judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in
Mahendra C Shah Vs. Bank of Baroda & Ors.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to judgment in Anish
Lawrence & Anr. Vs. Renahan Vamakesan and submitted that, in similar
circumstances, Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the view that delay should have been condoned. Right to appeal is a substantive statutory right, and it
is important, a degree of leniency has to be shown in condoning the delay,
especially when the delay is within the condonable limit.
3. Here is scenario, a resolution professional appears to be fighting a battle
for his remuneration. The tenability of his claim is a different issue, his right
to agitate must have to be looked into with some degree of fairness.
4. After all, unlike a debtor or creditor, who are drawn into a litigation, as
the case may be, the role of IRP/ RP is somewhat different for he has to
discharge certain responsibilities contemplated under the Code in aid of a
insolvency resolution process. We have gone through the authorities
circulated by the respondent but then we have our own views in the matter
for after all every decision is a precedent only for what it actually decides, and
no more. In the present case, we are satisfied with reasons of delay put forth
by the Appellant which delay is also within the condonable limit of 15 days.
Accordingly, we allow this application.
Justice N. Seshasayee Member (Judicial)
Barun Mitra Member (Technical) rashmi/md
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) 1292 of 2025 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